/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150615.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 118 Headlines 3332 BOSTON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholders Win $275-Mil. Settlement ADAMS & REESE: 2 Law Firms to Pay $5MM to Stanford Ponzi Victims AFNI INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims AKI RENOVATIONS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Salddivar" Suit Says ALABAMA: Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act AMSPEC SERVICES: Faces "Atanassov" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ANTHEM INC: To Defend Against Gold Class Action ANTHEM INC: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in BCBSA Lawsuits ANTHEM INC: Bid to Transfer Cyber Attack Incident Cases Heard AOL INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Verizon, Class Suit Claims ARK 48: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AT&T CORP: Training Manager's Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Massachusetts AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Suit Over Bogus Buyout Offer BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Oregon-Led FX Class Suit for $180-Mil. BAPTIST HEALTH: Removed "McMaster" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas BBY: Irate Clients to Sue ASX, ASIC Over Losses BIG 5: Objector to Settlement Withdraw Notices of Appeal BIG 5: Hearing Held on Settlement in Pedro Duran Case BOX OFFICE: Faces "Blahnik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BP PLC: Riney Not Guilty of Making False Statements, Jury Rules BUTLER & HOSCH: Violates WARN Act, Fla. Class Suit Alleges CADIZ INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Howard G. Smith Firm CALIFORNIA: Cannot Place Liens on Tribal Assets, Court Rules CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: S.C. to Review Navy-Recruitment Texts Suit CANADIAN HEATING: Settlement Looms on Gas Fireplace Class Suit CANADIAN PACIFIC: Sept. 8 Trial on Derailment Suit CARVER BIBLE: Withheld Financial Aid from Students, Suit Claims CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Suit for Mishandling Clients' Money CHC GROUP: Accused of Withholding Negative Information During IPO COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Decision Still Pending in PAO Case COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Cemig D Facing Municipal Assoc. Lawsuit COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Case in "Proofs of Performance" Phase COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Facing Class Action Over Outsourced Labor COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Public Illumination Contribution COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Impact from Plant Construction COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Environmental Protection Revenue COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Permanent Preservation Area COMPTON UNIFIED: Faces Class Suit Filed by Traumatized Students COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settles SEC Fraud Charges for $190 Million CRST EXPEDITED: Sued by Female Truck Drivers Over Rape Claims CYAN INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Ciena Corp., Suit Claims DART CHEROKEE: Evidentiary Proof Not Needed, High Court Rules DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued By Traditional Taxicab Drivers DOLLAR TREE: To Pay $300,000 to Settle Workers' Class Action EBAY INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Complaint ENTERPRISE LEASING: To Pay $22.7MM to Settle Concession Fees Suit ETSY INC: July 13 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid ETSY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Gainey McKenna ETSY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: To Pay $2.1MM to Settle Software Glitch Suit EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd in Process of Obtaining Settlement Okay EXPERIAN SERVICES: Accused of Scheming With Info Bounty Hunter EXXON: Public Comment Period on $225MM Settlement Ends FOREST LABORATORIES: Limits Namenda IR Availability, Suit Says FORMFACTOR INC: No Motion to Certify Class in Ex-Employee's Suit FOUR BLR: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued for Not Paying Mgmt. Trainees' Overtime GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Case GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Brian Meyers Case GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Heard Argument on Dismissal Bid GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Hialeah Case GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Entered Into Settlement GENWORTH FINANCIAL: All Claims in Goodman & Brown Case Dismissed GLOBAL POWER: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Wolf Haldenstein GOLD AND SILVER: Dancers to Be Asked to Join Class Suit GOOGLE INC: Accused of Not Redeeming Value of Play Gift Cards GREENPOINT AG: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime HAWAII: Part-time Teachers, Subs Awarded Another $46-Mil. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Private Info HERBALIFE LTD: Issues Statement on Approval of Class Settlement HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT, "D'Addario" Suit Claims HOLLISTER CO: Decision Makes State Courts Favorable, Attys. Say HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Gives Up License HSBC: 7th Cir. Grants New Trial in $2.4-Bil. Securities Suit IG INVESTMENT: Costs Principles in Class Suits Not Asymmetrical IHEARTMEDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement INSULET CORP: July 6 Deadline to Lodge Lead Plaintiff Bid INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York ISORAY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Rosen Law Firm J ROMAN: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JC CHRISTENSEN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Class Suit JP MORGAN: Sends Cash Refunds in McDonald's Debt Card Case KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Court Dismisses MLB Teams From "Senne" Suit KIND LLC: Removed "Molina" Class Suit to Middle District Florida KING OF CLUBS: Sued for Charging Exotic Dancers $60 per Shift Fee L'OREAL USA: Falsely Advertised "Lush Lash System," Suit Says LA CHEMICAL: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LEGALZOOM.COM: North Carolina Court Junks Class Suit LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LINKEDIN CORP: California Court Dismisses "Sweet" Class Suit LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Unearned Probation Charges LOUISIANA: Accused by Angola Prisoners of Medical Neglect LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files New Suit Over Flooring MANNY PACQUIAO: Faces 32 Class Suits Over Fight with Mayweather MARYLAND: Sued Over Violation of Sex Offenders' Rights MASTEC INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Suit MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $731MM Liability in Merchant Litigation MASTERCARD INC: Parties Appealed Certification Decision MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Scheduled Trial for January 2016 MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Filed in ATM Surcharge Complaints MCKEE FOODS: Removed "Martin" Suit to Central Dist. California MELROSE CAFE: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime METLIFE INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Illinois MICHIGAN: Nonunion Staff Can't Sue as Class, 6th Cir. Rules MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mortgage Suit MRI INT'L: Accused Ponzi Schemers Appeal Freeze of All Assets NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Likeness Suit Settlement Affirmed NATIONAL HOCKEY: Classes Certified in Sports Cable Package Suit NEUSTAR INC: Counsel for IPRS Filed Notice of Appeal NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Over Rape & Abuse at Rikers Island NUCOR CORP: 4th Cir. Upheld Class Cert. for Black Steelworkers OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies "Shamblin" Class Cert. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Hua, Suit Says ORANGE COUNTY, CA: To Refund Fines Over Red-light Tickets ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over FICA Refunds PACIFIC WEST: Accused of Charging Monthly Fees Before Activation PENNYSAVER USA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice PETROCHINA CO: Bid for Submission of Supplemental Pleadings Nixed PHILADELPHIA: DA Says Forfeiture Protocols Necessary PHILLIP MORRIS: Ill. High Court Hears Arguments on $10BB Verdict PRICE CHOPPER: Team Leaders to Get Invite to Join OT Class Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Not Liable for Collapse of MF Global PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Will Continue to Defend McCaffree Case PROGRESO LATINO: "Matute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Firm Prepares Suit Over Montara Oil Spill QEP RESOURCES: Accord in "Gagne" Contingent Upon Court Approval REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lies About Quality of Discs, Class Suit Claims ROBERT BOSCH: Sued in Michigan for Fixing Prices of Spark Plugs RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Montesano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denied Class Cert. for Stonewalled Cops SEGA OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify "Aliens" Gamers Class SF FORTY-NINERS: Class Must Be Certified First in Antitrust Suit SHORTERS UNIVERSITY: Attorneys to Argue Over Jurisdiction SLEEP TRAIN: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers & Truckers, Suit Says SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime SPRINT SPECTRUM: TCPA Class Suit Goes to Arbitration STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Misleading Ads TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg to Expand Air Bags Class Suit TOP RANK: Faces "Bradley" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment TRILOGY FLORAL: "Urra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UNITE GRILL: "Pintens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages VI GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faces "Heller" Suit in New York District Court WAL-MART STORES: Settles "Odle" Suit Alleging Sex Discrimination WELLS FARGO: Sued for Charging Customers for Unneeded "Solutions" YONKERS, NY: Sued for Charging Residents Annual Inspection Fees ********* 3332 BOSTON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Monje Maldonado, Judith Lopez, and Petra Perea, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3332 Boston Road Realty Corp. d/b/a Crown Motor Inn, Konstantinos Paxos, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04159 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 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 short stay motel located at 3320 Boston Rd, Bronx, New York 10469. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholders Win $275-Mil. Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that approving the largest cash award ever in a derivative suit, a judge signed off on a settlement to Vivendi's restructuring that gives Activision Blizzard $275 million. Vivendi had a controlling equity position in Activision, but the video game giant behind "Call of Duty" announced on July 26, 2013, that the French multinational had agreed to sell back 85 percent of that stake for $8.17 billion. With Vivendi desperate for cash to pay of more than $17 billion in debts, Activision bought 439 million of Vivendi's shares for $5.83 billion, and an investment group headed by company insiders CEO Bobby Kotick and co-chairman Brian Kelly picked up 172 million shares in a private sale for $2.34 billion via an investment vehicle called ASAC. The prices included a 10 percent discount on Activision's closing price the day before the deal's announcement. Coupled with the jolt to Activision's stock price, the discounted sale price earned the Kotick-led investment group an unrealized gain of more than $725 million on the first day of trading after the deal closed. Activision's board initially refused to approve the transaction unless ASAC's voting rights were capped at 19.9 percent, but Kotick and Kelly rejected the cap, and refused to support any deal except their own. Vivendi ultimately negotiated directly with Kotick and Kelly, and the deal that the board approved capped ASAC's voting power at 24.9 percent. Approving a settlement of the case shareholders eventually brought in Delaware Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor J. Travis noted May 20 that "Activision indisputably received significant benefits from the restructuring." "The problem with the transaction was not the lack of benefits to Activision, but rather the extraordinary benefits that Kotick and Kelly extracted for themselves," Laster added. The directors personally gained $178 million when Activision's share price jumped at the deal's announcement. They also stood to double their money if Activision's stock price remained at $17.4 per share, or make nine times their money if Activision's stock price doubled to $35 per share in four years. They would lose nothing if the company's stock price declined by 20 percent from the post-announcement price. In addition, Kotick and Kelly won direct control over 26 percent of Activision's voting power, although it was capped at 24.9 percent. ASAC affiliates controlled another 9 percent of the voting power. Kotick was also able to place two close friends on the board of directors, making a majority of directors likely to vote with ASAC. In the $275 million settlement to Activision that Laster approved May 20, Vivendi will pay $67.5 million of the total, while ASAC will pay more than $150 million. The deal reduces Kotick and Kelly's voting power to 19.9 percent, and it creates two new spots on the board, to be filled by individuals unaffiliated with Kotick or Kelly. Laster noted that "the monetary consideration of $275 million is the largest cash recovery ever achieved on stockholder derivative claims." "The magnitude of the settlement reflects that lead counsel advanced strong claims for breach of the duty of loyalty," Laster added. While the settlement allocates all the money to Activision, rather than individual class members, the class directly benefits through an increase in voting power and influence of unaffiliated shares, the chancellor found. "Although these corporate governance measures can be viewed as good for Activision, they are primarily good for the class," Laster said. The judge awarded lead counsel $72.5 million, citing the complexity of the litigation, and the substantial nonmonetary relief won for the class. Lead plaintiff Anthony Pacchia will also receive a special award of $50,000. Lead Plaintiff Anthony Pacchia is represented by: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 Facsimile: (302) 573-3501 E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com jgorris@friedlandergorris.com - and - Jessica Zeldin, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 Facsimile: (302) 658-7567 E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com - and - Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC 885 3rd Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com squire@bespc.com Defendants Vivendi S.A., Philippe Capron, Frederic Crepin, Regis Turrini, Lucian Grainge, Jean-Yves Charlier, and Jean-Francois Dubos are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. Susan M. Hannigan, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 E-mail: dicamillo@rlf.com hannigan@rlf.com - and - Joel A. Feuer, Esq. Michael M. Farhang, Esq. Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7005 Facsimile: (213) 229-6005 E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com amircheff@gibsondunn.com Defendants Robert A. Kotick, Brian G. Kelly, ASAC II LP, and ASAC II LLC are represented by: R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., Esq. Shannon E. German, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Telephone: (302) 351-9340 Facsimile: (302) 425-3014 E-mail: rscaggs@mnat.com sgerman@mnat.com - and - Robert A. Sacks, Esq. Diane L. McGimsey, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6600 Facsimile: (310) 712-8800 E-mail: sacksr@sullcrom.com mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com - and - William H. Wagener, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: wagenerw@sullcrom.com Defendants Robert J. Corti, Robert J. Morgado, and Richard Sarnoff are represented by: Garrett B. Moritz, Esq. Eric D. Selden, Esq. ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP 100 S. West Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 576-1600 Facsimile: (302) 576-1100 E-mail: gmoritz@ramllp.com eselden@ramllp.com - and - William Savitt, Esq. Ryan A. McLeod, Esq. Benjamin D. Klein, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1000 Facsimile: (212) 403-2000 E-mail: WDSavitt@wlrk.com RAMcLeod@wlrk.com BDKlein@wlrk.com Nominal Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. is represented by: Edward P. Welch, Esq. Edward B. Micheletti, Esq. Sarah Runnells Martin, Esq. Lori W. Will, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-3000 Facsimile: (302) 651-3001 E-mail: edward.welch@skadden.com edward.micheletti@skadden.com sarah.martin@skadden.com lori.will@skadden.com The consolidated case is titled In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8885-VCL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. ADAMS & REESE: 2 Law Firms to Pay $5MM to Stanford Ponzi Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that two Louisiana law firms will pay $5 million to settle claims they referred clients to R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme and gave fake opinions to Antiguan banking authorities. A proposed class of Stanford investors sued New Orleans-based Adams & Reese, Baton Rouge-based Breazeale Sachse & Wilson and several individuals in Federal Court in 2011. Court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey filed a second suit in 2012, accusing the defendants of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting. Janvey also sued Adams & Reese attorneys Robert Schmidt and James Austin, Breazeale Sachse & Wilson attorney Claude Reynaud and Stanford Trust Co. directors Cordell Haymon and Thomas Frazier. Janvey said the defendant law firms "embarked on their own campaign to enrich themselves at their other clients' expense," and that while providing legal services to Stanford Financial, they referred their own clients to Stanford . The law firms and Janvey settled the bulk of the claims May 12 in a stipulation and proposed order. Adams & Reese will pay the receivership $1 million and Breazeale Sachse & Wilson will pay $1.53 million and release $198,000 held in escrow, according to a 40-page motion to approve the proposed settlement . Haymon will pay the receivership $2 million and Frazier will pay $175,000. "Movants jointly request that this court find the settlements are in the best interest of the Stanford Estate and the Stanford investors, and approve the settlements," the motion states. Adams & Reese will be dismissed from Janvey's lawsuit, with Breazeale Sachse & Wilson remaining only on a claim of vicarious liability. The settling defendants still "vigorously dispute" the claims in both lawsuits, but say the settlement is "a fair and reasonable compromise" given the "uncertainties inherent in litigation" and issues with collectability. Janvey claimed in his lawsuit that Renaud and Breazeale Sachse & Wilson were brought in to help with Stanford's purchase of Southern Trust Co., a Baton Rouge-based trust company, which established the investment retirement account component of the Ponzi scheme. He alleged Renaud and BSW delivered a letter, purportedly from Antigua's Minister of Finance, to Louisiana state authorities that attested to the "integrity" and "professional competence" of SIBL's operations. In reality, this letter was actually written by Stanford Financial -- most likely [Stanford Financial general counsel Yolanda] Suarez or one of her staff -- and Reynaud knew this letter was actually written by Stanford Financial because Suarez provided him with a draft copy of the letter when Reynaud met with Suarez on June 4, 1998, before it was purportedly signed by Antigua's Minister of Finance," the complaint stated. Janvey said the fake letter worked, as the state's Office of Financial Institutions conditionally approved the acquisition, which was closed by BSW in July of 1998. The company's name then was changed to Stanford Trust Company. Two months later, Stanford Trust Co. (STC) opened its doors and Stanford Financial began implementing its fraudulent IRA plan by promoting STC as a trustee and custodian for Stanford Group Company's IRA investor clients, the complaint stated. Janvey claimed STC and its parent company executed reciprocal referral agreements that gave both companies incentives to "recklessly promote" STC so the parent company's IRA clients could invest their retirement funds in SIBL CDs. The complaint accuses Renaud of knowing about Stanford's failure to obtain security for its fictitious investments, which is a breach of fiduciary duty to IRA accountholders. Janvey's attorney, Kevin Sadler with Baker Botts in Palo Alto, said Janvey is "pleased" with the settlement. "This case is but one of more than 50 that the receiver has pursued to recover funds for the benefit of the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme," Sadler said May 13 in an e-mail. "This settlement is in the best interests of those victims. The receiver will continue to prosecute his cases against other defendants who benefited from the Stanford Ponzi scheme." AFNI INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- David Beneli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03605 -FLW-DEA (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com AKI RENOVATIONS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Salddivar" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Saldivar and Emmanuel Saldivar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Aki Renovations Group, Inc., Aki Renovations, Inc., Aki Todic, Mujo Todic, and Halil Todic, Case No. 1:15-cv-03130 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 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 full service construction company that provides new construction and renovation work in the New York Tri-State Area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 564-5468 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com ALABAMA: Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on May 21 ruled that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and enjoined probate judges from enforcing it, then stayed her decision pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the issue, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade has been sparring with the state of Alabama since January, when she initial ruled its same- sex marriage ban was illegal. Three weeks later, the Alabama Supreme Court order the judges to stop issuing licenses to the couples. Judge Granade's latest ruling came after the ACLU of Alabama and three other civil rights organizations requested she expand an ongoing lawsuit, Strawser v. Strange, to cover all same-sex couples and probate judges across the state. The district court's order will take effect when the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in several pending cases seeking the freedom to marry in four states. The Supreme Court marriage cases were argued in April, and a ruling is expected by the end of June. "This is a victory for the LGBT community of Alabama," said Susan Watson, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama, after Granade's ruling was announced. "We applaud the court for its ruling that puts an end to the chaos created by the Alabama Supreme Court. Today love is triumphant." The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center jointly filed the motion March 6, asking Granade to expand her ruling to apply to all same-sex couples and all probate judges throughout the state. The motion sought class action status to include all same-sex couples in Alabama who wish to marry and have their marriage recognized by the state as plaintiffs and all probate judges of the state as defendants. In her ruling expanding the plaintiff class, Granade said the "Defendants' alleged conduct is directed against a specific class of people, same-sex couples, and is uniform in its application." Therefore, she said, "All Plaintiff Class members have been harmed by being denied the ability of obtaining a marriage license and their injury can be properly addressed by class-wide injunctive relief." Strawser v. Strange was brought by five same-sex couples after previously obtaining an order from Granade requiring the issuance of marriage licenses in Mobile County. Also on May 21, Granade rejected a motion by Probate Judge Tim Russell who sought to reverse her January ruling on the grounds she failed to address his legal argument that he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Russell argues his actions, refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, are not prejudicial, but only a manifestation of his enforcing a state supreme court order. Granade noted that the plaintiffs in Strawser are not seeking to hold Russell liable for complying with the Alabama Supreme Court's decision, "but seek only to redress the deprivation of their constitutional rights." "Under the circumstances here present, the Court finds that quasi- judicial immunity does not apply," she wrote. The case is James N. Strawser, et al. v. Luther Strange, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, et al., Case No. 14-0424-CG-C, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. * * * Sunnivie Brydum, writing for SheWired, reported that the federal judge who twice struck down Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage issued another pro-equality decision, granting class action status to all same-sex couples seeking to marry in Alabama, and rebuking state officials who have tried to ignore her earlier rulings. U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, who in January found Alabama's statutory and constitutional bans on marriage equality to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, reaffirmed that all state agencies are bound to abide by her earlier rulings. While Granade's 14-page order prohibited state officials from enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriage, it also included a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the marriage cases currently before it. That decision is expected in June, which means the Alabama ruling will not take effect until that time. Ruling is the latest to add to the complicated state of marriage equality in Alabama. The decision responds to a March petition from several civil rights groups to recognize all same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in the state with a class action status. That motion, which Granade's decision granted, came as part of a lawsuit brought by five same-sex couples in Mobile County who had sued over Probate Judge Don Davis's refusal to issue licenses. In Alabama, probate judges are responsible for issuing marriage licenses. Judge Granade's latest ruling directly addressed Davis, who has repeatedly refused to abide by earlier pro-equality rulings, claiming there was legal uncertainty about whether he was bound by the federal judge's decision or by the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, which intervened in early March and stopped same- sex couples in Alabama from marrying after Judge Granade's original ruling brought marriage equality to the state in February. Davis found support for his defiance of a federal court order in the Alabama Supreme Court's Chief Justice Roy Moore, a staunch marriage equality opponent who had told probate judges not to grant licenses to same-sex couples and claimed the federal judiciary had no authority over marriage in the state. "Because the issuance of marriage licenses is a purely ministerial act, Judge Davis, Judge Russell and the members of the Defendant Class have only a ministerial interest in issuing marriage licenses and would suffer little if any actual harm from the injunction," writes Judge Granade in decision. The federal judge then effectively shuts down the legal arguments advanced by Davis and the state's attorney general, Luther Strange, who claim that a pro-equality ruling from Judge Granade puts probate judges in conflict with the Alabama Supreme Court, which upheld the state's ban on marriage equality in a separate case brought by several right-wing groups. "It is true that if this Court grants the preliminary injunction the probate judges will be faced with complying with either Alabama's marriage laws that prohibit same-sex marriage as they have been directed by the Alabama Supreme Court or with complying with the United States Constitution as directed by this Court," Judge Granade concedes. "However, the choice should be simple. Under the Supremacy Clause, the laws of the United States are 'the supreme Law of the Land.'" "It's a shame that it had to come to this," said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan in a statement. "Probate judges, and the Alabama Supreme Court, should have seen the writing on the wall with the federal court's earlier rulings. It is time for bigotry against same-sex couples to come to an end -- in Alabama and elsewhere." Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, added that ruling is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and the founding princiiple of our nation that states may not deny rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." "Judge Granade's ruling is decisive and definitive," said David Dinielli, deputy legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It ends the chaos and confusion that Attorney General Strange and Chief Justice Moore have intentionally caused through their reckless rejection of federal constitutional principles." AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Violet Tawil, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03615-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com AMSPEC SERVICES: Faces "Atanassov" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jivko Atanassov, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Amspec Services, L.L.C., Case No. 3:15-cv- 03628-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Amspec Services, L.L.C. is a New Jersey corporation that provides inspection, testing, and verification services to its clients in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia A. Barasch, Esq. SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC Moorestown Office Center 110 Marter Avenue, Suite 302 Moorestown, NJ 08057-3124 Telephone: (856) 914-9200 E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com ANTHEM INC: To Defend Against Gold Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. intends to vigorously defend the Gold class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May 11, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December 15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on October 16, 2014. The matter was taken under advisement by the trial court, which has requested post-trial briefing. We expect the trial court to issue its decision on liability sometime in 2015. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. "We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California," the Company said. "The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non- disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non- Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking the following classes: (1) a subscriber ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of implied covenant class for all Anthem states except California. Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held on the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some the medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court's enforcement of the injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition on February 23, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in BCBSA Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery has commenced in multiple lawsuits against the BCBSA. "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country," the Company said. "The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on July 1, 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: Bid to Transfer Cyber Attack Incident Cases Heard ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation related to the Cyber Attack Incident and heard by the Panel on May 28, 2015. "In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack," the Company said. "The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained." "Currently, we are in the process of addressing the cyber attack and supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We will provide credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. While the cyber attack did not have an impact on our business, cash flows, financial condition and results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014, we have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. Although we are unable to quantify the ultimate magnitude of such expenses and any other impact to our business from this incident at this time, they may be significant. We will recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred. "Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of current or former members, current or former employees, other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, are investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 10, 2015 and will be heard by the Panel on May 28, 2015. "We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature, however, the coverage may not be sufficient to cover all claims and liabilities. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved." AOL INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Verizon, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling AOL too cheaply through an unfair process to Verizon, for $4.4 billion or $50 a share, shareholders claim in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court. ARK 48: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ark 48 Corporation d/b/a Toasties, Toasties Deli Corp. d/b/a Toasties, Toasties One Corp. d/b/a Toasties, jin Choi, Raymond Kim, Robert Kim, Susan Kim, and Elliot Lee, Case No. 1:15-cv-04160 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 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 chain of delicatessens in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com AT&T CORP: Training Manager's Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers and Settlements reported that AT&T is in the cross-hairs of an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by a training manager who alleges the company is in violation of California labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the AT&T lawsuit contends that the telecommunications giant intentionally misclassified the workers as being exempt from overtime requirements in order to avoid giving them the extra pay they were entitled to under state and national employment laws. Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, plaintiff Wendell Watson alleges that despite assigning the trainers their work and being aware that they often worked longer than 40 hours a week, AT&T refused to pay overtime to training specialists nationally. Here's the skinny, according to a statement issued by attorney's representing the plaintiff: AT&T employees involved in designing company trainings often work nights and weekends interviewing experts at the company and then passing the information on to instructors. In the lawsuit, Watson, an AT&T training design manager since 2001, states that the workers not only did not receive overtime but also regularly worked more than five consecutive hours without a required half-hour meal break or a second break after working for 10 hours. The lawsuit also states that "In addition, the California plaintiff and California class members regularly work and have worked without being afforded at least one 10-minute rest break, in which they were relieved of all duty, per four hours of work." AT&T is also being accused of failing to provide accurate wage statements, such that workers were not able to determine how much and for what hours they were being paid. Not an uncommon complaint these days, sadly. The case is Walton v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:15-cv-03716, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility makes assistant store managers work off the clock, a class action claims in Massachusetts Federal Court. AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Suit Over Bogus Buyout Offer ------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Neumeister and Marley Jay, writing for The Associated Press, report that federal regulators say a Bulgarian man was part of a scheme to manipulate the stocks of Avon Products and two other companies by issuing fake takeover offers. Nedko Nedev, 37, of Sofia, Bulgaria, and four other defendants worked together to violate securities laws over the last four years, according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4. One defendant, PTG Capital, filed an offer for Avon in May claiming it had proposed buying all the company's stock for a large premium, the suit said. As a result, Avon's shares soared as much as 20 percent on May 14. The SEC said the company seems to have been formed only to manipulate stocks. Mr. Nedev and others who were not identified pulled off a similar scheme with the stock of Tower Group International, a reinsurance company, on May 13, 2014, and with Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory on Dec. 18, 2012, the lawsuit said. Shares of both companies soared on those days. The SEC's filing system is a trusted source for investors seeking important and timely disclosures from companies that can affect stock prices. The fact that a fake filing about a major company, like Avon, managed to get posted through the SEC came as a big surprise to many in the markets. The SEC lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and the court's help in preventing Nedev and the other defendants from committing fraud. Email messages sent to defendants were not immediately returned. The SEC said Mr. Nedev controlled at least one of two now-frozen brokerage accounts containing approximately $2 million in assets. "Even when traders attempt to hide behind proxy servers, false filings, and phony foreign entities, we are able to quickly identify patterns and relationships to focus our investigation and identify who is behind the manipulative trading," said Daniel Hawke, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit. Avon Products said it is continuing to work with regulators on the matter. Rocky Mountain Chocolate didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Tower had already agreed to be acquired by another company when it received its suspicious bid last year. BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Oregon-Led FX Class Suit for $180-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arleen Jacobius, writing for Pensions & Investments, reported that the state of Oregon, on behalf of Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund and Oregon Common School Fund, is settling a class-action lawsuit against Bank of New York Mellon (BK) Corp. (BK) for $180 million, said Michael Cox, spokesman for state Treasurer Ted Wheeler, in an e-mail. Oregon was the lead plaintiff in the class-action filed in February 2012 seeking losses suffered by the $70.3 billion Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, Salem, and the $1.5 billion Oregon Common School Fund, Salem, and other shareholders, including public pension funds and mutual funds, when BNY Mellon's stock price fell after news reports about BNY Mellon's alleged foreign-exchange fraud. Whistleblowers alleged that BNY Mellon rigged prices to obtain higher profits; news of the alleged fraud resulted in a 41% drop between April 2008 and June 2011 in BNY Mellon's share price. The settlement will be submitted for preliminary approval within the next 30 days to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in New York. If the judge initially approves the settlement, notices will be sent to class members and the agreement will then be submitted to the judge for final approval later this year. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, BNY Mellon said it had reached a $180 million settlement in regard to a "pending foreign exchange-related putative class-action lawsuit asserting securities law violations." "This settlement effectively resolves virtually all of the currently pending foreign exchange-related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers. The settlement is subject to court approval," the statement said. Kevin Heine, BNY Mellon spokesman, declined to comment beyond the statement in the SEC filing. BAPTIST HEALTH: Removed "McMaster" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Debbie McMaster and all others similarly situated v. Baptist Health and John Bowen, Case No. 10- CV-15-29, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas to the U.S. District Court Western District of Arkansas (Hot Springs). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv- 06047-RTD to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges employment discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucien Gillham, Esq. HARRILL & SUTTER, P.L.L.C. 310 West Conway Street P.O. Box 2012 Benton, AR 72018 Telephone: (501) 315-1910 Facsimile: (501) 315-1916 E-mail: lucien.gillham@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Byron L. Freeland, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD 425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 E-mail: Bfreeland@mwlaw.com BBY: Irate Clients to Sue ASX, ASIC Over Losses ----------------------------------------------- Elysse Morgan, writing for ABC News, reported that irate clients of the collapsed broker BBY are blaming the ASX and ASIC for the loss of potentially millions of dollars and are considering legal action. BBY clients' money is in limbo after the company entered administration and the ASX ordered the closure of options positions, action that stripped investors of their ability to manage their positions and potentially exposed them to heavy losses. Malcolm McLoughlin, a client of BBY, is astounded at what has happened. "It is shameful. I'm still waiting on information as to what's happened with my options. I've had no information from the ASX," he told the ABC. The market, he said, moved badly against his positions but he has been powerless to do anything. He believes he will be hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket. "Did the ASX even have a right to do what it has done? "I didn't do anything wrong, I was all paid up, all my positions were covered. I followed all the rules and now I'm getting punished. All the clients of BBY are being punished for something BBY did," he said. The ASX said its market rules gave it no choice but to close out the options once administrators moved in. Clients, BBY brokers not notified of changed deadline BBY emailed all options clients telling them that BBY was exiting that business and clients had to transfer to another broker. "If all your open positions are not transferred to another clearing participant by 1 June 2015, BBY intends to close out all your open positions," chief executive Glenn Rosewall wrote. Mr McLoughlin had begun the process of switching to rival broker Pattersons. However, in a move that has angered and mystified him, the ASX moved the goal posts on 18 May at 11.53am, telling all BBY clients that they had only until 1.30pm that day to move their accounts. Mr McLoughlin missed the deadline because he was at work. He said he was not sent an alert by the ASX and his BBY broker was not alerted to it until after the deadline had passed. When he contacted Pattersons they told him it was too late. The ABC has spoken to another BBY client who believes he has lost in excess of $2 million because of the actions taken by the ASX. The Melbourne doctor had also received the email from BBY regarding the June 1 deadline and was also in the process of trying to move his accounts. He has been trading options since the 1970s and was shocked by the market regulator's actions. "The dispute was over a couple million dollars between the regulator and BBY and it's created losses of hundreds of millions of dollars," he said. Collapse will result in a 'lawyers' picnic' BBY collapsed. Mr Rosewall appointed KPMG as administrators after the ASX suspended trading because the broker breached capital rules. The Melbourne doctor said serious questions need to be asked. "How can they [the ASX] sell something that is legally mine, without telling me, without giving me an option to get out, for a price that I don't know and potentially at a loss?" Mr McLoughlin and the Melbourne doctor said they would be enthusiastic supporters of any class action on the matter, describing it as a "lawyers' picnic". The doctor believes the regulators, the ASX and ASIC, failed to properly oversee BBY's operations and magnified their mistakes in their handling of the administration. "It is like a bank foreclosing on a property where all repayments have been made on time and in full," he said. "It makes no sense." BIG 5: Objector to Settlement Withdraw Notices of Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that a Notice of Appeal was filed by an objector to a class action settlement, which was withdrawn on April 17, 2015. The Company was served on the following dates with the following nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested or required to provide personal identification information at the time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC462213. On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the Company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following: statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; expenses; restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief. In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013, April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on July 15, 2013. As a result of the foregoing, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On March 23, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement and on January 2, 2015, entered judgment on the settlement. On February 2, 2015, a Notice of Appeal was filed by an objector, which was withdrawn on April 17, 2015. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company distributed to class members who submitted valid and timely claim forms either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10 merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the Company paid plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class representatives and claims administrator's fees. Furthermore, to the extent that if the total amount paid by the Company for the class payout, class representative enhancement payments and claims administrator's fees was less than $1.0 million, the Company issued merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement. The Company's estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is reflected in a legal settlement accrual initially recorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2013, and subsequently adjusted in fiscal 2014 to reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit. The settlement constitutes a full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit. BIG 5: Hearing Held on Settlement in Pedro Duran Case ----------------------------------------------------- Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the court has scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2015, to consider the parties' request to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement in the case filed by Pedro Duran. On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an amended complaint was filed. As amended, the complaint alleges the Company violated the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of certain of the Company's hourly employees who worked as "warehousemen" in the Company's distribution center in California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to pay such employees for all time worked, failed to provide such employees with compliant meal and rest periods, failed to properly itemize wage statements, and failed to pay wages within required time periods during employment and upon termination of employment. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the purported class members, an award of statutory and civil damages and penalties, including restitution and recovery of unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest; an award of attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint or the amended complaint. In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on January 28, 2015. On April 1, 2015, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The court has scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2015, to consider the parties' request to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company agreed to pay approximately $1.4 million, which includes payments to class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement payment to the class representative, claims administration fees and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The Company's anticipated total payments pursuant to this settlement have been reflected in a legal settlement accrual initially recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 prior to the settlement and subsequently adjusted in the first quarter of fiscal 2015 to reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit. Once final approva is granted, the settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit. If the court does not grant preliminary or final approval of the settlement, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. If the settlement is not finally approved by the court and the lawsuit is resolved unfavorably to the Company, this litigation could have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition, and costs associated with any judgment, defense of this litigation as well as any required change in the Company's labor practices, could have a material negative impact on the Company's results of operations. BOX OFFICE: Faces "Blahnik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Blahnik and Addison Poppas, individually and for all others similarly situate v. Box Office Ticket Sales, LLC, Tickets in Time, LLC, John Urich and Howard Schwartz, Case No. 1:15-cv-04735 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate an online ticket broker which is in the business of buying and selling tickets for customers in the secondary market for events including, but not limited to, concerts, sporting events and theatre shows across the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com BP PLC: Riney Not Guilty of Making False Statements, Jury Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McGill and Rebecca Santana, writing for The Associated Press, report that the June 5 acquittal of a former high-ranking BP executive charged with lying to investigators looking into the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill marked the latest setback for federal prosecutors pursuing criminal charges in the disaster. A federal jury took about two hours to find David Rainey not guilty of making false statements. Days before, U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt had tossed out a related charge that Mr. Rainey obstructed a congressional investigation of the spill. Judge Engelhardt told jurors before discharging them on June 5 that he agreed with their verdict. Mr. Rainey's acquittal came days after prosecutors asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the conviction of a former BP engineer, Kurt Mix. Mr. Mix, in 2013, had been acquitted on one criminal count but convicted on a charge that he knowingly deleted text messages about the spill. However, that victory for prosecutors was tossed out by a judge who said the verdict was tainted by a jury forewoman's remark -- to an apparently deadlocked panel -- about something she had heard outside the courtroom. The appeals court decision in the Mix case is pending. As for Mr. Rainey, he had been tasked, in the days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, with calculating the amount of oil gushing into the gulf. Prosecutors said he manipulated his calculations to match a far- too-low government estimate of the flow rate. He was charged with lying about having done so during an interview with federal investigators almost a year later. "We respect the jury's verdict," said Leo Tsao, a prosecutor with a federal Deepwater Horizon task force. Environmental lawyer David Uhlmann said the government faced tough odds in the oil spill case. "The verdict demonstrates how difficult it is to prosecute individuals when the primary culprit is a corporate culture run amok," Mr. Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section, said in an email. "In its case against David Rainey, the Justice Department also faced a significant evidentiary hurdle, which is that no one knows how much oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico during the Gulf oil spill," Mr. Uhlmann added. Indeed, Mr. Rainey's attorneys built much of their defense on the inability of anyone, in the early days of the spill, to figure out how much oil was flowing. And, they argued, an estimate was largely irrelevant because an all-out effort was being made to cap the well, regardless of how much was spewing. "It was a fool's errand," defense lawyer Reid Weingarten said of Mr. Rainey's task. "It was demanded by politicians and the press. And he reluctantly took up the cudgel and came up with his best response." BP declined comment on June 5. Mr. Rainey, whose defense was paid for by his former employer, smiled but declined to talk to reporters as he walked briskly out of the courtroom to hug family members. The government has had some successes. In November of 2012, federal authorities and the oil giant announced a settlement of criminal cases arising from the explosion, the resulting deaths of 11 rig workers, and the aftermath. The corporation agreed to plead guilty to charges including 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect of a vessel's officers, one felony count of obstruction of Congress, and one misdemeanor count each under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Clean Water Act. Penalties totaled $4.5 billion. Trial is pending for BP well-site leaders Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, who have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter charges stemming from the 11 deaths. They are charged with repeatedly disregarding abnormal high-pressure readings that should have been glaring indications of trouble just before the blowout. The Deepwater Horizon explosion resulted in the nation's worst offshore oil spill -- an 87-day underwater gusher. A federal judge overseeing civil litigation in the case acknowledged this year that estimates of how much oil was released vary widely, but he settled on a figure of about 3.19 million barrels -- a rate of more than 36,000 barrels per day. Various early estimates were much lower. Mr. Rainey's trial focused on an early National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimate, days after the spill began, of about 5,000 barrels a day, and whether Mr. Rainey had "backed into" his own calculations to match that estimate. BUTLER & HOSCH: Violates WARN Act, Fla. Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that the failure of executives to warn employees about the pending collapse of the Butler & Hosch law firm was illegal, a new federal lawsuit alleges. The suit, filed late in Fort Lauderdale federal court, names two former Butler employees as plaintiffs, Stephen Regal and Gianna Hills, but it seeks class action status on behalf of 700 former employees of the firm. The lawsuit alleges that the firm failed to abide by the federal WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification). The act requires most companies with 100 or more employees to warn of mass layoffs 60 days in advance. "Butler & Hosch knew that terminations were anticipated, but failed to provide employees. . . with advance notice as required under the WARN Act," the lawsuit states. "The employees were provided with no notice, severance, and barely an opportunity to gather their personal items before security badges and telephone extensions were deactivated." The suit also alleges that the firm failed to reimburse employees for company expenses they had covered and deceived employees from looking for other work and/or making contingent plans. The suit seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, all accrued paid time off, pension and 401k contributions and other benefits, for 60 days, that would have been covered; and all unreimbursed expenses. The suit mentions a previous round of layoffs, in December 2014, which had also cut many Orlando employees, but the suit is only directed employees who were terminated May 14 this year. Besides the impact on employees, the Butler law firm was handling up to 60,000 foreclosure cases when it closed, half of which were in Florida. Those cases are in limbo now, according to court officials. The employees are represented by Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman partners Gary Farmer, Steven Jaffe, Mark Fistos and Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale. Roy Kobert, a shareholder in the Orlando and Tampa offices of GrayRobinson, is representing Butler & Hosch. He did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. CADIZ INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Howard G. Smith Firm -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of Cadiz, Inc. ("Cadiz" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDZI) who purchased shares from March 10, 2014 through April 21, 2015, inclusive (the, "Class Period"). The class action concerns the Company's and its officers' possible violations of federal securities laws, and the subsequent damage to Cadiz investors upon disclosure of these violations of law and the Company's true operations and prospects. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period are encouraged to contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, prior to the lead plaintiff deadline of June 23, 2015. Cadiz operates as a land and water resource development company in the United States. It engages in the water resource, and land and agricultural development activities in San Bernardino County properties. On April 21, 2015, areport was published on seekingalpha.com that cited documents, received pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, concerning Cadiz's water project. According to the seekingalpha.com report, the FOIA documents reveal that the Company's main water project has effectively failed due to regulatory concerns and budgetary constraints; and, that the Company is nearing bankruptcy. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.72 or nearly 8% per share, to close on April 21, 2015 at $8.98 per share. If you purchased shares of Cadiz between March 10, 2014 through April 21, 2015, inclusive, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ The firm may be reached at: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Tel: 215-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com CALIFORNIA: Cannot Place Liens on Tribal Assets, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ California cannot place liens on tribal assets to collect unpaid state unemployment reimbursements, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. U.S. District Judge John Mendez on May 13 granted summary judgment to Blue Lake Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe in Humboldt County. Mendez ruled that any alleged misuse of the tribe's sovereign immunity was not relevant to whether California's Employment Development Department (EDD) can attach liens on the tribe's property. The tribe established Mainstay Business Solutions in 2003 as a for-profit business to provide employee leasing and temporary staffing for businesses in California, Hawaii and Nevada. Mainstay participated in a joint federal-state unemployment insurance program and became a "reimbursable employer," which meant that the state would pay former employees and Mainstay would reimburse the state for those costs. A dispute arose in 2008 about how much Mainstay owed in reimbursement, leading EDD to attach liens to the tribe's property in several counties and issue subpoenas to Blue Lake's banks seeking information about the tribe's assets. The tribe filed a lawsuit against officers of EDD to stop them from their collections and to cancel the liens. It also asked the court to declare that the state's actions violate Blue Lake's sovereign immunity. Mendez rejected the state's argument that sovereign immunity does not apply to tax enforcement, saying the state failed "to recognize 'the difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them.'" "Here, the tribe does not contest that defendants had authority to demand compliance with state law: that is, to require the tribe to pay reimbursements consistent with the unemployment insurance program. The real issue is whether defendants could enforce compliance by initiating collection actions," Mendez wrote. Courts have established that immunity bars methods of enforcement similar to this case, Mendez said, finding that the state is barred by sovereign immunity from placing a lien on Blue Lake's tribal property. "The fact that some of that property may be located outside of the reservation does not avoid the sovereign immunity bar," Mendez ruled. The state failed to show that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity, but merely argued that Blue Lake's evidence that it did not waive immunity was insufficient. Blue Lake provided evidence that neither its general or business councils had passed a resolution waiving sovereign immunity in favor of the EDD or any of the other defendants in this action. The law does not require Blue Lake to disprove every possible means of waiver, Mendez found. It is sufficient for the tribe to point out the absence of evidence to support the state's case. "Because defendants have provided no facts supporting a theory of waiver, summary judgment is warranted," Mendez said. Whether Blue Lake invoked sovereign immunity in order to delay or defraud EDD from collecting unemployment insurance from the tribe is not relevant in this case, which involves only the issue of whether the state violated the tribe's immunity through its collection actions. "This court makes no decision about plaintiff's liability arising from Mainstay's role as a reimbursable employer," Mendez wrote, disregarding the state's attempt to raise disputes about how much the tribe owes. The tribe has established that it will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, which is the only relief available. "(I)f the court does not enjoin the liens, plaintiff would be unable to obtain damages from defendants because of the state's own immunity. And this unavailability of alternate remedies makes the harm from the violation of sovereign immunity irreparable," Mendez wrote. The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Blue Lake Rancheria has an interesting and complex history. The 26-acre reservation was established in 1908 for homeless Indians. The federal government "terminated" the reservation in 1954 under a policy that was supposed to integrate Native Americans with Anglo society. The termination policy was widely viewed as disastrous, and in 1966 the federal government returned the 26 acres to the Native Americans -- but without the rights accorded to other Native Americans and tribes. Blue Lake then joined 16 other rancherias in a class action lawsuit, Tillie Hardwick et al. v. the United States, which the rancherias won. The United States granted them their native rights in 1989, and Blue Lake now operates under its own constitution. The case is Blue Lake Rancheria, et al. v. David Lanier, in his official capacity as Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01124-JAM- JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: S.C. to Review Navy-Recruitment Texts Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed May 18 to look at a case where consumers received unsolicited text messages on their cellphones to recruit them to the Navy, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Jose Gomez filed the class action after receiving a text message on May 11, 2006, stating: "Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a career. An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause. For a FREE Navy video call [number]." The Navy, which is not a defendant had hired a marketing consultant, Campbell-Ewald Co., to develop and execute a multimedia recruiting campaign, targeting people between the ages of 18 and 24 who had consented to solicitation. Campbell-Ewald in turn hired Mindmatics to generate a list of phone numbers fitting these conditions and transmit the messages. Though a Navy representative testified that the Navy did not authorize messages to be sent to people who had not opted in, Gomez, well outside of the specified age range at 40 years old, said he did not consent to receiving the text message. California-based U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee nevertheless found in favor of Campbell-Ewald, holding that the company was immune because it was working at the Navy's direction to implement the text-message recruitment campaign. The 9th Circuit vacated that decision last year, however, finding that Gee applied the standard for liability under the wrong precedent, the 1940 Supreme Court decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. In Yearsley, the Supreme Court held a contractor immune from suit over the unconstitutional taking of property because its work was done in accordance with express congressional directive and because the government had impliedly promised to compensate the plaintiffs. The 9th Circuit deemed such reasoning irrelevant to Gomez's case, however, because his claims do not implicate a constitutional promise to compensate injured plaintiffs. "Instead, Congress has expressly created a federal cause of action affording individuals like Gomez standing to seek compensation for violations of the TCPA. In the 70-year history of the Yearsley doctrine, it has apparently never been invoked to preclude litigation of a dispute like the one before us," Judge Fortunato Benavides wrote for the court. "This court, in particular, has rarely allowed use of the defense, and only in the context of property damage resulting from public works projects." Benavides also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that more recent cases provide the company with immunity, as they were not applicable to Gomez's case. Campbell-Ewald had argued for a new immunity for government- service contractors, but the 9th Circuit declined, noting that "immunity must be extended with the utmost care." "The record contains sufficient evidence that the text messages were contrary to the Navy's policy permitting texts only to persons who had opted in to receive them. Consequently, we decline the invitation to craft a new immunity doctrine or extend an existing one," Benavides wrote. The 9th Circuit also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that it cannot be held liable for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations because it outsourced the sending of the text messages to Mindmatics. Several federal courts have concluded that the TCPA imposes vicarious liability between a defendant and a third-party caller, and the Federal Communications Commission recognizes vicarious liability for violations committed by third-party telemarketers, according to the ruling. "The present case affords an opportunity to clarify that a defendant may be held vicariously liable for TCPA violations where the plaintiff establishes an agency relationship, as defined by federal common law, between the defendant and a third-party caller," Benavides wrote. As to Campbell-Ewald's claim that the federal statute restricting unsolicited text messaging is unconstitutional, the court saw no evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home. Furthermore, "the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that privacy," Benavides wrote. "After all, it seems safe to assume that most cellular users have their phones with them when they are at home. Campbell-Ewald itself notes that in many households a cell phone is the home phone." Campbell-Ewald additionally failed to show that the military- recruiting messages were a form of government speech, afforded greater protection by the First Amendment. Benavides called the government-speech doctrine "simply immaterial to the present dispute, in which the plaintiff is not advocating for viewpoint neutrality, but is instead challenging the regulation of a particular means of communication." Following its custom, the Supreme Court issued no comment on the case in granting Campbell-Ewald a writ of certiorari May 18. The case is Campbell-Ewald Company v. Jose Gomez, Case No. 14-857, in the United States Supreme Court. * * * Patrick Lewis, in an article for Mondaq News Alerts, reported that the United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), which involved a TCPA class action brought by the recipient of a text message that a contractor, defendant Campbell-Ewald, sent on behalf of the U.S. Navy in May 2006. The text message read: "Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a career. An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause. For a FREE Navy video call [number]." Plaintiff brought both individual and class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking to represent a putative nationwide class of "nonconsenting recipients of the Navy's recruiting messages." Before plaintiff moved for class certification, the defendant tried to moot plaintiff's claims by tendering an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that, in the defendant's view, would have fully satisfied plaintiff's claims. (Defendant offered to pay $1,503 per violation, plus reasonable costs.) Plaintiff rejected the offer and then moved for class certification. The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant's position that its offer of judgment mooted plaintiff's individual and class claims, relying on its precedents in Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) ("an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy a plaintiff's claim is insufficient to render the claim moot") and Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1081-1082 (9th Cir. 2011) ("an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment -- for the full amount of the named plaintiff's individual claim and made before the named plaintiff files a motion for class certification -- does not moot a class action"). The court declined to reconsider Diaz and Pitts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013) that a Rule 68 full-relief offer mooted a collective action brought under the FLSA. (The Court assumed, without deciding, that such a Rule 68 offer mooted the plaintiff's individual claim.) While the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that language in Genesis Healthcare "undermined some of the reasoning" employed in Diaz and Pitts, it held its prior cases were still good law because of the important differences between class actions and FLSA collective actions. The questions presented were: (1) Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim. (2) Whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified. (3) Whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects. We will continue to follow this case, which will hopefully bring clarity to the role Rule 68 offers of judgment have in class action proceedings. CANADIAN HEATING: Settlement Looms on Gas Fireplace Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Sinoski, writing for Vancouver Sun, reported that three gas fireplace manufacturers have agreed to provide free screens or barriers for all appliances sold between 2001 and 2014 following a class-action lawsuit triggered two years ago when a toddler burned his hand on a glass-fronted fireplace. The companies -- Canadian Heating Products, Inc., Monessen Hearth and Miles Industries Ltd. -- have agreed to the settlement but do not admit to any liability or wrongdoing. The agreement requires approval from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Wendy Harris, who will determine whether it is "fair and reasonable" and legally binding. Harris has reserved her decisions. The class action was launched by Craig and Charity Cantlie in 2012 after their one-year-old son Owen was seriously burned after briefly touching the glass on the family's Montigo fireplace. The Cantlies argued the fireplace was at toddler height, could reach temperatures as high as 315 C and did not come with a screen or grate to prevent direct contact. The deal would apply to fireplace brands including Montigo, Valor, Majestic, Vermont Castings, Monessen, Lexington Forge and DutchWest, but not to outdoor fireplaces and stoves or those used commercially, or fireplaces manufactured by Valor U.K. and distributed by Miles Industries Ltd. before 2004. The Cantlies' lawyer, Rob Anderson of Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, urged the judge to approve the settlement, saying the warnings on fireplaces are not effective enough to prevent severe injury while "all of the retrofits will significantly reduce the burn risk," whether it be a new screen, a screen enhancement or a free-standing barrier. He noted the settlement took more than a year to hammer down. "The settlement was a back-and-forth compromise," Anderson said. "There were a number of tough issues." If the settlement is approved, the screens and barriers would be offered to an estimated "tens if not hundreds of thousands" of fireplace owners in the year following the agreement. The lawsuit alleged the defendants and other manufacturers supplied hundreds of thousands of gas-burning glass-fronted fireplaces, inserts and stoves that are a danger to anyone who touches the hot glass, particularly young children, since the 1980s. Calling the defendants' actions "high-handed, outrageous and reckless," it sought safety improvements for the fireplaces as well as health costs for the injured. "The defendants knew or ought to have known, for many years and at material times, of the dangers posed by the fireplaces and yet did not address them," the claim states. Canadian Heating has filed a counterclaim against the Cantlies, alleging negligence with respect to Owen's injuries. That claim would be thrown out if the settlement is approved by the courts. The Cantlies won't get a cash settlement, according to the agreement, but Anderson has asked for an honorarium to compensate them. Anderson cited an affidavit from Dr. Cynthia Verchere, a plastic surgeon and medical director of the burn unit at B.C. Children's Hospital, showing the industry had been considering the burn issue as far back as 1991. "There was a standard in the industry but it was a standard that the glass didn't break," Anderson said. "It had nothing to do with the safety of children; it was that the glass didn't blow up." Lawyer Mike Wagner, who was on the case with Anderson, said the improvements would help prevent similar injuries in the future. Wagner became interested in the lawsuit after his two-year-old daughter Annie suffered second-degree burns to both palms and fingers after touching the glass-fronted fireplace in a restaurant in 2011. She spent two weeks at Children's Hospital and returned several times to have her dressing changed or dead skin cut off. Others have faced situations as bad or worse. Steven Ryder swore in an affidavit that his daughter Riley, who suffered second and third-degree burns to both her hands and her nose when she was 13 months old, cannot hang from the monkey bars at the playground or do other "elementary childhood things" as a result. Verchere was unavailable for an interview but said in an affidavit that she has personally treated more than 100 children whose hands or faces were burned through contact with a gas fireplace. She is also the co-author of a study documenting more than 600 serious burns suffered by children across Canada from glass-fronted fireplaces and has tried for years to deal with the issue. Many of those children endure painful dressings, skin grafts, casts, and pressure gloves, and multiple visits to doctors and clinics. Verchere had noted the U.S. requires screens to be sold with fireplaces, a decision that arose partly out of several lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, Hearth and Home Technologies, another fireplace manufacturer, decided to include effective screens with all fireplaces after the grandchild of one of its executives was burned. Anderson noted it may be difficult contacting fireplace owners, noting there is no definitive list held by the defendants, who are mainly fireplace distributors. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Sept. 8 Trial on Derailment Suit -------------------------------------------------- HazMat.com reported that a class-action lawsuit in Quebec has been approved for victims of the fiery 2013 Lac-Megantic derailment that killed 47 people, but some of the major companies involved in the disaster won't be part of the lawsuit's proceedings. Quebec Justice Martin Bureau has given the plaintiffs the greenlight to sue World Fuel Services and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. Other notable players, however, filed for protection from creditors following the tragedy, and also filed a request to have the lawsuit suspended. The lawsuit alleges that Canadian Pacific Railway was negligent and showed a lack of due diligence in all circumstances leading up to the July 6, 2013 derailment. The exact financial amount being sought will be determined at a later date. The lawsuit was filed by three Lac Megantic residents -- Guy Ouellet, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent -- on behalf of all the derailment victims. The trial date is to be set Sept. 8. CARVER BIBLE: Withheld Financial Aid from Students, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Officers and board members of an Atlanta college withheld federal financial aid from students and lied about it, a student says in court, reports Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service. Carver Bible College student Donovan Gardner filed a class action lawsuit against the school and its personnel in the Atlanta Federal Court on May 19. The 30-page complaint alleges the college's president and chief financial officer, Robert W. Crummie, Sr., and other school officers defrauded Gardner and other students out of receiving their financial aid and falsely blamed the U.S. Department of Education for withholding the funds. The other defendants are Board of Trustees member Thomas G. Fritz, Chairman of the Board Frank Oakley and Vice President of Business Affairs Terry Alexander. "In advancing their fraudulent scheme, the Officers represented to the students that the federal student loans would be properly applied to educational expenses, and any refunds of the federal student loans would be properly disbursed to the students," the complaint says. According to the complaint, Crummie "falsely blamed the DOE, indicating that Carver was 'waiting for their approval to release the rest of the funds.'" But the DOE sang a different tune and indicated that the "Department did not instruct Carver College personnel to freeze the disbursement of school refunds to the students," Gardner says. "As a result of their fraudulent scheme, Defendants have accumulated funds that rightfully belong to Plaintiff," the complaint continues. "To this day, those funds continue to be withheld from Plaintiff." Carver's officers are accused of using the United States Postal Service and e-mail to execute their scheme. Gardner says he was approved to receive more than $14,000 in federal financial aid, as was fellow student Alethea Hutchinson. "Despite being awarded federal student financial aid, neither Plaintiff Gardner nor Hutchinson received proper disbursement of the federal student financial aid," the complaint states. Instead, Crummie sent Gardner and other students a series of letters, in which he blamed the DOE for the funds not being disbursed. In a letter sent to students on Jan. 5, Crummie indicated that "Carver had not received the funds from the DOE and asking the students to 'return and register for the spring 2015 semester' and that Carver had 'worked through the issues with the Department of Education and [was] confident that the same scenario will not be repeated.'" Crummie sent another letter to the students on Jan. 17, stating that the DOE "are the ones in control, not Carver" and that Carver would "contact you [the students] immediately when the funds arrive to inform you when to come pick up your disbursements." A Feb. 12 letter from Crummie indicated that the DOE "had rejected the request for funds and that Carver could not release the funds." Another letter written by Crummie was sent to students on March 24, this time saying "the U.S. Department of Education requires us to post aid to student accounts and show refund amounts, if any, to student accounts before we actually receive the funds." Despite the fact that none of the student aid had been disbursed, Alexander posted that $10,388 had been disbursed to Gardner. As of May 18, Gardner says he does not have access to Carver's website and is unable to reach the school by phone. The complaint says it is "entirely possible" that others were aware of and involved in the scheme. Gardner is represented by Atlanta-based DeWoskin Law Firm. CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Suit for Mishandling Clients' Money --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal NewsLine reported that a large brokerage firm is being accused of mishandling its clients' money and routing most trades to a specific securities firm. Louis Lim filed the lawsuit on May 8 in U.S. District Court in California against Charles Schwab, claiming the firm routed nearly 95 percent all of the clients' non-directed orders to UBS Securities LLC. The lawsuit claims Charles Schwab did this because of "legally binding Equities Order Handling Agreements" it had with UBS. The suit said Charles Schwab breached its fiduciary duties by directing funds to UBS, and it "violates Schwab's duty of best execution." Lim is seeking class status for those who had non-directed orders handled by Charles Schwab, and is also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. Furthermore, the lawsuit seeks to prevent Charles Schwab from continuing to route nearly all of its non-directed orders to UBS. Lim is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- and Sarah Boot, Esq., of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP; Brian J. Robbins, Esq. -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Kevin A. Seely, Esq. -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq. -- arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Leonid Kandinov, Esq. -- lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- of Robbins Arroyo LLP; and Jeffrey R. Krinsk, William R. Restis and David J. Harris Jr of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP. All the firms are located in San Diego. CHC GROUP: Accused of Withholding Negative Information During IPO ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CHC Group raised $294 million in an IPO by withholding negative information, shareholders claim in a federal class action against the company and its underwriters. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Decision Still Pending in PAO Case -------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a decision by the Court has been pending since March 2008 in the case filed by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office. The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against the Company and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (the Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency), or ANEEL, to avoid exclusion of consumers from classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category, requesting an order for the Company to pay 200% of the amount allegedly paid in excess by consumers. Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the plaintiffs. Cemig D and ANEEL have filed an interlocutory appeal with the Regional Federal Appeal Court. A decision by the Court has been pending since March 2008. On December 31, 2014 the amount of the contingency was approximately R$189.6 million. The Company has classified the chances of loss as 'possible' due to other favorable precedents, both in the judiciary and in the administrative sphere, in favor of the argument put forward by Cemig D. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Cemig D Facing Municipal Assoc. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cemig D is defendant in several legal actions, and in particular a class action filed by the Municipal Association for Protection of the Consumer and the Environment (Associacao Municipal de Protecao ao Consumidor e ao Meio Ambiente, or Amprocom), challenging amounts of tariffs charged by the Company after 2002 and its method of calculation, and applying for restitution, to all the consumers allegedly damaged in the processes of Periodic Review and Annual Adjustment of tariffs, in the period 2002 to 2009, of any amounts allegedly unduly charged.' At December 31, 2014, the amount involved in this action was R$233.8 million. The chances of loss in this action have been assessed as 'possible', due to the fact that there is no precedent. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Case in "Proofs of Performance" Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action against Cemig taken by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office for Employment Matters is now in the phase of proofs of specific performance as required. In June 2007 judgment was given against Cemig in a class action taken by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office for Employment Matters early in 2003, to prevent the Company from using outsourced workers for its end-activities. The judgment ordered the payment of damages for collective pain and suffering in the amount of R$0.3 million and gave the Company nine months to cease to contract employees through outsourced companies as intermediaries. In March 2008 the Higher Employment Law Appeals Court gave an interim decision suspending the effects of the previous judgment until a final decision had been given. In October 2012, the Higher Employment Law Appeals Court reversed the judgment and the judgment of the Regional Employment Court, absolving Cemig from paying moral damages and the collective fines that had been ordered. However, in November 2013, the Higher Employment Law Appeals Court, in a motion for clarification filed by the Public Attorneys' Office for Employment Matters, revised its decision and partially re-established the judgment ordering payment of damages for pain and suffering, setting them at R$0.15 million; and maintained the decision to reject the action that claimed outsourcing to be against the law. The decision became subject to no further appeal in September 2014, and the payment of R$0.375 million for moral damages was made. The case is now in the phase of proofs of specific performance as required, after which it will be extinguished. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Facing Class Action Over Outsourced Labor --------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a party in a class action brought by the Public Attorneys for Employment Matters, in which the discussion centers on outsourcing of labor in a company's end-activity. The amount of the contingency is approximately R$ 0.3 million (R$ 59 million at December 31, 2013), and carries the possibility of a penalty if the Company does not comply with a requirement for specific performance within a period determined by the court. Due to the decision in the Company's favor by the Higher Employment-Law Appeal Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, or TST), on acceptability of the action, in September 2014, the issue of penalty for non-compliance with specific performance was finalized, pending only the discussion of indemnity for collective moral losses. On this, the chances of loss continue to be assessed as 'possible', based on the opinion of the Company's legal advisors. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Public Illumination Contribution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cemig is a defendant in several public civil actions (class actions), claiming nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply Contracts for public illumination, signed between the Company and the various municipalities of its concession area, and restitution by the Company of the difference representing the amounts charged in the last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that these amounts were unduly charged. The actions are grounded on a supposed mistake by Cemig in the estimate of time that was used for calculation of the consumption of electricity for public illumination, funded by the Public Illumination Contribution (Contribuicao para Illuminacao Publica, or CIP). The Company has not constituted a provision for this action, the amount of which is estimated at R$ 1,457 million (R$ 1,291 million on December 31, 2013). It has assessed the chances of loss in this action as 'possible', due to the Consumer Defense Code (Codigo de Defesa do Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the matter is governed by the specific regulation of the electricity sector, and because Cemig complied with ANEEL Resolutions 414 and 456, which deal with the subject. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Impact from Plant Construction -------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an environmental association, in a class action, has claimed indemnity for supposed collective environmental damages as a result of the construction and operation of the Nova Ponte Hydroelectric Plant. Due to the changes made in the environmental legislation and the trend toward a consensus in case law, the Company has re-evaluated the amounts and probabilities of loss on the claims in this action from: R$ 254 million, with chance of loss 'possible', and R$ 807 million with chance of loss 'remote', comprising a total of R$ 1,061 million (R$ 1,801 million on December 31, 2013). The Company believes it has arguments of merit for legal defense, and the adversary party has not demonstrated elements to prove its arguments, which will result in the need for an expert witness proof to corroborate them. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Environmental Protection Revenue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Public Attorney's Office of the State of Minas Gerais has brought class actions requiring the Company to invest at least 0.5% of its annual gross operating revenue, since 1997, in environmental protection and preservation of the water tables of the municipalities where Cemig's power plants are located, and proportional indemnity for allegedly irreparable environmental damage caused, arising from omission to comply with Minas Gerais State Law 12,503/97. The Company has filed appeals to the Higher Appeal Court (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF). No provision has been constituted. The estimated amount of the contingency is R$ 77 million (R$ 108 million on December 31, 2013). COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Permanent Preservation Area ----------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class actions requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area (APP) around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant, suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses, and recovery of alleged environmental damage. Based on the opinion of its legal advisors in relation to the changes that have been made in the new Forest Code and in the case law on this subject, the Company has classified the probability of loss in this dispute as 'possible'. The estimated value of the contingency is R$ 24 million. COMPTON UNIFIED: Faces Class Suit Filed by Traumatized Students --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that the Compton school district fails to meet the needs of students who suffer "complex trauma" from living with violence, abuse and poverty, parents, teachers and children say in a federal class action. Five students so traumatized by their lives they say they are legally disabled are joined as plaintiffs by their guardians and Compton teachers who say they have lost "dozens of students to violence and attended their funerals." They claim Compton Unified School District violates the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and federal regulations on public education. "Schools are obliged under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate students who are being denied benefits of educational programs solely by reason of experiencing complex trauma," the 50-page lawsuit states. It recapitulates problems Compton children face, including exposure to violence and loss, deportations and incarceration of family members, living with someone with a drug or alcohol problem, systemic racism and discrimination, and the stress from lacking basic necessities such as food and shelter. Such overwhelming deprivation can create "complex trauma:" a concatenation of stresses so powerful they overwhelm a young person's ability to cope, according to the complaint. Citing a wide range of research, the plaintiffs say childhood trauma blocks academic success for millions of children, leading to low literacy, high dropout rates, repeating grades, and low overall achievement. The trauma must be dealt with to close the achievement gap, said Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel, a pro bono law firm that filed the lawsuit along with Irell & Manella. "Prolonged exposure to trauma results in injuries to the developing minds of children," Rosenbaum said. "It's the type of roadblock to learning that our federal anti-discrimination laws were created to address, so that students in these circumstances are not denied equal opportunity public education. "There is no greater enemy to learning than unaddressed trauma." Research shows that traumatic experiences can physically alter the developing brains and bodies of children, which can affect their behavior for decades and lead to post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and major depression. But rather then taking reasonable steps to address the needs of traumatized children, Compton Unified -- which serves 26,000 students -- has punished and excluded such students, leading to their academic failure, said Kathryn Eidmann, an attorney with Public Counsel. Punishing the students "sends a damaging message that students are responsible for the trauma they have endured and that their futures are disposable," Eidmann said. Plaintiff Peter P., 17, was repeatedly physically and sexually abused by his mother's boyfriends during the early years of his life and witnessed the abuse of his siblings and mother, the lawsuit states. He was placed in foster care after his mother, a drug addict, lost her parental rights. In middle school, Peter watched as his best friend was shot death. Last year Peter was stabbed when he tried to protect a friend whose relative was attacking her with a knife. Peter's two older brothers are in jail and a man who served as a caretaker for Peter and his siblings when they entered the foster system is in prison for murder, the complaint states. Peter was homeless for two months this year and slept on the roof of the Dominguez High School cafeteria, for which he was suspended. "Although some personnel were aware of these circumstances, Peter P.'s attempts to return to school were denied, and he was threatened with law enforcement involvement if he persisted in attempting to return," the complaint states. The trauma caused Peter, who has shown an ability to achieve high grades in honors classes, to suffer uncontrollable anger and to say he sometimes feels like he has a demon inside of him, according to the lawsuit. "Although he has repeatedly missed classes due to the complex trauma he has experienced, no mental health or attendance counselor or other school official has intervened or inquired as to the cause of these absences," the complaint states. "CUSD has also repeatedly subjected Peter P. to harsh punitive discipline. Over the course of his academic career, he has been repeatedly suspended for disobedient, angry, or aggressive behavior, and has been involuntarily transferred" from seven CUSD schools. Another student identified in the complaint has witnessed more than 20 shootings, has been in the cross fire eight times, and has suffered the deaths of two friends in the past year -- one of whom he saw get shot in the head, the lawsuit states. These experiences are far from unique among Compton Unified students because the district serves poor neighborhoods in which community violence is disproportionately high, the complaint states. The district operates 40 schools in the South Central Los Angeles County, including the city of Compton and parts of Carson and Los Angeles. Compton is among the most socioeconomically distressed cities in Southern California, with high rates of violent crime. Compton is known for the profusion of hip-hop artists who grew up there, many of whose songs glorify violence and drugs. But the reality for children is hardly glorious, according to the lawsuit. "CUSD is comprised of high numbers of foster and homeless youth, and nearly exclusively students of color who experience the expression and consequences of racism. Defendants are accordingly on notice that CUSD schools serve a disproportionately high number of students exposed to complex trauma. Concentrating many significantly trauma-impacted students in a school creates the highest level of need, necessitating the implementation of intensive systems of interventions," the complaint states. The three Compton Unified teachers who joined the lawsuit say they devote endless hours and emotional resources addressing student trauma without the training or support necessary to do so. For some teachers, this leads to burnout. Others begin to take on the students' trauma themselves and develop "secondary traumatic stress," which can create serious health consequences, the lawsuit states. Dominguez High School teacher Rodney Curry, a plaintiff, says he "has lost dozens of students to violence and has attended their funerals. Even more of plaintiff Curry's students have been shot of have witnessed or experienced traumatic violence but survived." The students and teachers say the district needs to train staff to recognize and respond appropriately to student trauma, provide mental health services for students to cope with their conditions, and to move from punitive disciplinary practices to restorative strategies that keep children in school. "The failure of defendants to properly account for the disabling impact of complex trauma results in students with the greatest needs and vulnerabilities being effectively denied access to education," the lawsuit states. Trauma-sensitive practices are being used in schools in Washington state, Massachusetts, and parts of San Francisco, according to the lawsuit. Research shows that students who received trauma intervention earned higher grades and suffered fewer behavioral problems than children who did not, and that suspension rates at schools with trauma-informed practices frequently drop sharply, according to the complaint. Officials with Compton Unified did not immediately respond to requests for comment. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settles SEC Fraud Charges for $190 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Computer Sciences Corp. is paying a $190 million penalty and a former CEO is returning $3.7 million in compensation to resolve federal regulators' charges of accounting fraud involving an important foreign contract. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement on June 5 with the big information technology company. Computer Sciences, based in Falls Church, Virginia, neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing in the settlement of civil charges. The SEC also brought charges against eight former finance executives in the company's international businesses. Five of the executives, including former CEO Michael Laphen, agreed to settle the charges; the other three are contesting them in federal court in Manhattan. The SEC recovered the $3.7 million from Mr. Laphen for the company in a so-called "clawback," under a 2002 anti-fraud law that requires senior executives to repay bonuses and stock profits they received during a period in which their company violated financial reporting rules. Mr. Laphen also is paying a $750,000 penalty. Former Chief Financial Officer Michael Mancuso is returning $369,100 in compensation in a clawback and is paying a $175,000 penalty. Mr. Laphen and Mr. Mancuso and the other three executives agreeing to settlements neither admitted nor denied the SEC's allegations. The SEC said Computer Sciences and the executives improperly inflated financial results in 2010 and 2011, and concealed the company's losses on a multibillion-dollar contract with Britain's National Health Service. The company said it was pleased to settle the case. "Putting this matter behind us is in the best interest of CSC, our stakeholders and our ongoing business transformation," spokesman Richard Adamonis said in a statement. Computer Sciences changed its executive leadership in 2012, revised the affected financial statements and has made major improvements to its programs for internal financial controls, compliance and disclosure, Mr. Adamonis said. The company agreed in the settlement to hire an independent consultant to review its ethics and compliance programs. "When companies face significant difficulties impacting their businesses, they and their top executives must truthfully disclose this information to investors," SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney said in a statement. The SEC said it also found that Computer Sciences executives in Australia and Denmark manipulated the financial results of company businesses in those regions. CRST EXPEDITED: Sued by Female Truck Drivers Over Rape Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that female long-haul truck drivers must carry weapons to fend off sexual assaults by co-drivers because CRST Expedited trucking ignores their complaints, women claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiffs Cathy Sellars, Claudia Lopez and Leslie Fortune sued CRST Expedited in Federal Court on May 18, in a lengthy complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation. Sexual assaults of female CRST drivers are so pervasive that others in the trucking industry joke that the acronym, which stands for Cedar Rapids Steel Transport, also stands for "Constantly Raping Student Truckers," according to the lawsuit. The women's attorney Joshua Friedman told Courthouse News that CRST has been ignoring complaints of sexual harassment for more than a decade. "There have been allegations of rapes, sexual assaults, and assaults with weapons. Many women say they have taken to carrying knives and Tasers to defend themselves," Friedman said in an interview. "Our client Leslie Fortune had to sleep with knives under her pillow and refer to them to get her co-driver to leave her alone. Another client had to have a screwdriver," co-counsel Giselle Schuetz added on the conference call. The attorneys said CRST's response to the allegations is "really beyond troubling." Based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, CRST Expedited is a subsidiary of CRTS International. The plaintiffs say male drivers constantly make offensive sexual remarks to female drivers, comment on their bodies, proposition them for sex and sexually assault them -- and CRST does nothing to stop it. As a result, women "have to fend off or worry about rape by their trainer, while enduring express threats of being failed, while being objectified and told to perform sex acts," according to the 74-page complaint. Training costs thousands of dollars, but CRST will forgive the debt if a trainee signs an eight-month contract to drive for the company. If she is sexually assaulted during training or before her contract ends, she must endure the abuse for the sake of her job, report it to deaf ears, or quit and have to repay her training costs, according to the complaint. "When female drivers refuse to have sex with them, male drivers retaliate, including but not limited to by kidnapping them, kicking them off shared trucks, making false reports of misconduct, threatening them with weapons, beating them or threatening beatings, spreading rumors they are prostitutes, preventing them from contacting CRST for assistance, and refusing to assist them with work-related tasks," the complaint states. The women say CRST gives lip service to their complaints and deliberately conducts inadequate, biased investigations that find nothing happened -- so the women have been forced to carry weapons. CRST does not discipline men accused of harassment or sexual assault, according to the complaint. It merely classifies them as "no females," an appealable designation forbidding them from driving with a woman for six months. But women who make complaints are forced to leave the truck even if they were driving it first, and have to wait without pay until someone from the company comes to pick them up, which can take as long as a week, the complaint states. Friedman called CRST's no-females policy "astounding." "It's a matter of logic. If you don't make factual findings on sexual assault allegations, what is the basis for a trainer's ability to appeal?" he asked. Attorney Schuetz said their clients were never told which men were on the no-females list, or if the men were ever disciplined for harassing them. But CRST gives the names of women who complain about harassment to the entire pool of drivers, including the men they complained about, the complaint states. The EEOC filed a similar class action in 2007 alleging that CRST's chronic pattern of ignoring female drivers' complaints stretches back to at least 1999, but the court dismissed the case after the 8th Circuit found the EEOC had not fulfilled its conciliation duties before filing suit. Schuetz and Friedman said that case will not affect the new one because they are based on different legal theories. "We don't see any legitimate basis to bring that court's legal conclusions to bat here," Friedman said. "The defense counsel will very likely try, but based on our analysis it should become a red herring and fail." The attorneys said that reading the women's depositions from the EEOC's case partly inspired their own. "Once we started reading the depositions, we thought, 'Why is there any reason to believe this is not happening?' Our clients had similar stories. We concluded that we had a moral, ethical obligation to stop it," Friedman said. Though the other women's experiences may be time-barred, what happened to them can be brought in as evidence, the attorneys said. Defendant's attorney Paul Mata said CRST takes the plaintiffs' allegations seriously. "To ensure a safe work environment, the company has a strict policy against discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment. Within the last year, Ms. Sellars filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing contesting these identical policies and practices. After a thorough investigation, the DFEH found no evidence to support these claims and dismissed her case," Mata wrote in an e-mail. "CRST is confident the result will be the same in the underlying claims alleged by plaintiffs in this matter." Mata is with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, back pay, front pay, and general, special, and punitive damages for sexual discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge, plus costs and fees. Schuetz and Friedman, of Mamaroneck, N.Y., and have applied to be admitted pro hac vice. Their co-counsel is Chris M. Heikaus Weaver with Aitken, Campbell, Heaikus Weaver of Riverside. Paul Mata is with Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Cathy Sellers claims one of her trainers made comments about her butt, masturbated on the bed where they were watching a movie pulled her shirt off while she was sleeping. She says she called Human Resources, which took her off the truck while her co- driver got to keep driving and earning money. She claims that another trainer shoved her into the passenger seat when she called dispatch to complain about him and drove off while holding her at knifepoint. Plaintiff Claudia Lopez claims that a trainer told her he would "rape her and marry her and taker her with [him]" when he got back from his road training. On another occasion, Lopez says, she awoke to find her co-driver naked and on top of her. Grabbing the screwdriver she kept under her pillow, she freed herself from the truck and called a CRST shuttle driver, but was reluctant to call Human Resources because she needed the money from driving, Lopez says in the complaint. Plaintiff Leslie Fortune claims several of her trainers propositioned her for sex. When she refused the advances of one of them, she says, he kicked her off his truck and spread rumors that she was a "lot lizard," trucker slang for prostitute, and later yelled at her when he found out she filed a complaint against him. After she reported one trainer named threatening to rape her, she learned he had been promoted to classroom trainer, and another trainer did not stop badgering her for sex until she told him she kept knives under her pillow, Fortune says. CYAN INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Ciena Corp., Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Cyan too cheaply through an unfair process to Ciena Corp., in a 0.224- for-1 stock swap valued at $400 million, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. DART CHEROKEE: Evidentiary Proof Not Needed, High Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence S. Elbaum and Tracy L. Silver, writing for The National Law Review, reported that in the Supreme Court decision in Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., the Court held that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their notice of removal of a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their notices a "plausible allegation" that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In so holding, the majority relied on the wording of the removal statute itself, which merely requires a "short and plain statement" setting forth a good-faith basis supporting removal. The Court's decision thus set forth for corporate class action defendants the minimum requirements their notices of removal must contain. The Court, however, neither held nor addressed whether a "plausible allegation" will sustain the removing defendants' evidentiary burden of proof where the class action plaintiffs contest whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Since Owens, class action plaintiffs have challenged, with some success, defendants' "plausible allegations" concerning CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. These challenges require class action defendants to submit evidence demonstrating, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, that the amount in controversy threshold has been satisfied. For example: * McDannel v. Precision Pipeline, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46535, No. 5:15CV4 (N.D. W. Va., Apr. 9, 2015) Granting motion to remand where defendant "speculated" that amount in controversy would likely be satisfied if plaintiff obtained the damages sought in the complaint; * McPhail v. Lyft, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31467, No. A-14- CA-829-LY (W.D. Tex., Mar. 13, 2015) In recommending to grant motion to remand, Magistrate Judge stated that "to suggest that the Supreme Court's decision in Dart clarified the procedure to follow when there is a dispute about the amount in controversy in a removed case completely misunderstands the decision."; * Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014) District court did not clearly err in finding that employer failed to show CAFA's amount in controversy requirement had been met, because employer failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence amount of compensation allegedly denied to class members; and * Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) Vacating district court's remand order because neither party submitted proof regarding amount in controversy and complaint did not include facially apparent amount. The Court's holding in Owens has thus far had little, if any, impact on class action removal jurisprudence under CAFA. As a practical matter, class action defendants should be prepared to provide evidentiary proof that they can satisfy CAFA's $5 million removal threshold. Class action defendants should also take this evidentiary burden into consideration when preparing notices of removal. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued By Traditional Taxicab Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Bash, writing for WTOP.com, reported that drivers of traditional taxicabs are suing the District of Columbia, claiming services like Uber and Lyft have an unfair advantage in the city. The class action lawsuit says a bill approved monto regulate newer taxi services in D.C. created an "irrational, two-tired regulatory system that unconstitutionally harms the economic and property interests" of the plaintiffs and other taxi drivers like them. It says traditional cabbies are heavily regulated and have to pay thousands of dollars to comply with those regulations, but smartphone app-based companies like Uber are allowed to offer the same services with fewer restrictions and costs. When DC's rules were first approved, Uber praised the city, calling it a trailblazer in the transportation industry. The class action lawsuit was filed by six taxi drivers and a group they belong to -- the Washington D.C. Metro Area Taxi Operators Association. DOLLAR TREE: To Pay $300,000 to Settle Workers' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Daugherty, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reported that Dollar Tree wants to pay $300,000 to more than 4,200 current and former employees to settle a class action lawsuit claiming the Chesapeake-based retailer failed to compensate them for routine "off the clock" work. The employees' attorneys? They would receive $1.9 million. Attorneys representing Dollar Tree -- which maintains it did nothing wrong -- and the employees declined to comment on the proposed settlement. A hearing is set for in U.S. District Court in Norfolk. Judge Raymond Jackson is expected to review the proposal to determine whether it is fair. Charles Craver, a professor who specializes in employment law at George Washington University's law school, said attorneys who handle class action lawsuits often walk away with large paychecks. "That's not unusual at all," Craver said. "A class action lawsuit is a very, very big way to make money for an attorney." Class action lawsuits involve a large number of people with similar experiences dealing with an organization that they say did them wrong. They usually help people whose cases, on their own, garner too little money to make them worth the cost or effort to push through the legal system. In the Dollar Tree lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed they were required to work during their lunch breaks and after their shifts had ended -- between 30 and 45 minutes each day. Court documents indicated about 270,000 current and former workers could have qualified for the lawsuit, which named the nation's largest operator of stores selling everything for $1 as a defendant. It initially estimated the damages at more than $5 million in unpaid compensation since 2009. In 2012, Jackson dismissed part of the lawsuit involving assistant store managers, but he allowed an "opt-in collective action" on behalf of hourly sales associates. The workers in this case technically constitute a "collective," rather than a class, which means they had to choose to join the suit. The judge denied an attempt by Dollar Tree to break up the collective, concluding that the workers all had similar job duties and supervision. According to court documents, attorneys hammered out the settlement agreement on March 2, during a meeting with Magistrate Judge Lawrence Leonard. It was requested by the employees' attorneys and was the second such settlement conference to be supervised by Leonard. Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs will receive checks between $10 and $3,142, documents said. Employee attorneys are in the process of notifying their clients of the settlement and their rights. If a plaintiff wants, he can forfeit his portion of the settlement, hire a new attorney and file a separate lawsuit, according to a copy of the notice. The employee attorneys justified the settlement in court documents by noting that the number of plaintiffs had dwindled over time from more than 6,000 to 4,209. They also noted that Dollar Tree was poised to have nearly 3,700 more plaintiffs kicked out of the suit on a motion for summary judgment. "A settlement of $300,000.00 provides significant relief to the remaining collective," the employees' attorneys wrote. The lawyers went on to argue the $1.9 million in attorney fees was a bargain "due to the size, scope and highly contested nature of the litigation." The 11 lawyers, along with clerks and paralegals, said they spent more than 11,000 hours on the case. They estimated the final cost at more than $3.4 million. Craver, the professor, said he found it "kind of amazing" how much the plaintiffs' attorneys will receive under the settlement given how little their clients will get. He noted that the judge could reduce the attorney fees and even reallocate some of those funds to the clients. "It depends on the judge," Craver said. Under the agreement, however, the plaintiffs can back out of the settlement if Jackson tries to reduce the attorney fees. EBAY INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reported that on May 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that a putative class plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims against eBay Inc. ("eBay") arising out of a data breach that occurred in February and March 2014. In dismissing the putative class action, the court found that the increased risk of future identity theft or identity fraud posed by a data security breach did not confer Article III standing on individuals whose information was compromised by the data breach but had not yet been misused. Following the 2014 data breach, plaintiff Collin Green filed a 10- count consumer privacy putative class action against eBay on behalf of himself and all eBay users in the United States whose personal information was accessed during the data breach. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the data breach, users' names, encrypted passwords, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers were compromised, but there was no indication that any financial information was accessed or stolen. eBay moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Green, the sole named plaintiff, had failed to allege a cognizable injury in fact and thus lacked Article III standing to pursue the case against it. Green, on the other hand, argued that the class action complaint sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact because the plaintiff and the putative class members were "now subject to the 'statistically certain threat' of identity theft or identify fraud, and they have incurred, or will incur, costs to mitigate that risk." To show standing pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The injury alleged must be "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent." For a threatened injury to be sufficient to confer Article III standing, it must be "certainly impending." In this case, the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that he has suffered an actual or imminent injury. First, according to the court, the mere fact that the plaintiff's information was accessed during the data breach is insufficient to establish injury in fact. Second, despite alleging that all members of the putative class had suffered actual identity theft, the court found that plaintiff's "true argument" was that class members suffered an increased risk of future identity theft or identity fraud. However, plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing that the alleged future injury was certainly impending, especially in light of the fact that there was no evidence that any financial information or Social Security numbers were accessed during the data breach. Third, mitigation expenses do not qualify as an injury in fact when the alleged harm is not imminent. ENTERPRISE LEASING: To Pay $22.7MM to Settle Concession Fees Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that Enterprise and Vanguard rental cars must pay $22.7 million to settle a class action over airport recovery concession fees in Nevada. U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks on May 15 ordered the two companies to pay $19.3 million to 1,276,448 class members who sued when the firms did not include airport recovery concession fees in the advertised cost for rental cars. Class members can choose vouchers for free car rentals instead of cash. If all class members accept vouchers instead of cash, the value of the settlement would be $70 million, Hicks wrote. Hicks said one reason he approved the settlement was because "class counsel has been involved in this case for nearly nine years" and Enterprise and Vanguard said they would appeal if the settlement were not approved. If appealed, Hicks said, the plaintiffs "predicted that this litigation would be 'dragged on in the 9th Circuit for several more years without the class receiving the immediate and substantial benefit of the settlement' and potentially without recovering at all." Nevada airports require rental car companies to pay a percentage of their gross revenue as concession fees, which the rental companies pass on to consumers as "airport recovery concession fees." The fees were not included in the rental car rate quotes but were itemized afterward. Lead plaintiffs Lydia Lee and Carolyn Bissonette sued in June 2010, accusing Enterprise and Vanguard of violating Nevada law. The court approved the preliminary settlement on Dec. 12, 2014. Vouchers will be good for two years after issuance and can be used by anyone in a class member's family. Class members will receive one to five rental vouchers, based on how much they paid in airport concession recovery fees. Anyone who paid less than $20 in fees is eligible for a single voucher, while those who paid at least $20 but less than $40 will be eligible for two vouchers. Class members who paid at least $40 but less than $60 qualify for three vouchers, and those who paid between $60 and $80 are eligible for four vouchers. Anyone who paid $80 or more qualifies for five vouchers. The vouchers are good nationwide, with those from Enterprise being good for Enterprise locations and those from Vanguard being good at Alamo and National rental car locations. Enterprise and Vanguard agreed to pay $2.5 million in attorney's fees and $96,913.43 in legal costs. When added to $804,229.95 in costs Enterprise and Vanguard must spend for serving notice to class members, the total potential cash settlement amount is $22,745,907.36. Officials for Enterprise and Vanguard could not be reached for comment May 18, nor could class attorney G. David Robertson. The class is represented by: G. David Robertson, Esq. ROBERTSON, JOHNSON, MILLER & WILLIAMSON 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600 Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 329-5600 Facsimile: (775) 348-8300 E-mail: gdavid@nvlawyers.com ETSY INC: July 13 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until July 13, 2015, to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Etsy, Inc. if they purchased the Company's securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Etsy 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 July 13, 2015. About the Lawsuit Etsy and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. These false statements and omissions included, in part, that: (i) more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement; and (ii) brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees and commissions. After the lawsuit was filed, on May 19, 2015, Etsy reported its first quarter financial results, revealing that it suffered a net loss of 84 cents per share, when analysts had expected the Company to break even. On this news, the price of Etsy's shares plummeted. The firm may be reached at: KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 7044 Tel: (504) 455-1400 ETSY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Gainey McKenna ------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Etsy, Inc. ("Etsy" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ETSY) securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive ("Class Period"). The Complaint alleges the Company and its top executives misled investors by failing to disclose the risks associated with the Company's widespread sale of counterfeit goods, and/or goods that infringed on intellectual property rights. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants misstated and/or failed to disclose that: (a) over 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement; (b) brands are increasingly pursing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing Etsy's listing fees and commissions; and (c) as a result, Etsy's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth entered the market, Etsy shares fell $1.86 per share on heavy trading volume to close at $20.85 per share on May 11, 2015. The Company's shares have declined further on news of Etsy's poor quarterly results, and that a major intellectual property rights holder has sued the Company for infringement. On May 20, 2015, the Company's shares closed at $17.20, a nearly $14.00 per share decline from the Company's recent high of $31.00 on April 16, 2015. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. ETSY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Etsy, Inc. ("Etsy" or the "Company"). The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Etsy securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on common stock purchased within the Class Period to contact us immediately atclassmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735. Etsy operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and sell handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendant failed to disclose that more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement and that Brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright infringement. On May 11, 2015, before the market opened for trading, Gil Luria, an equity analyst at Wedbush Securities, issued a note downgrading Etsy to "Underperform." In the note, Luria alleged that more than 5% of merchandise sold on Etsy's platform were either counterfeit or violated trademark protections. Following this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86, or over 8%, on unusually heavy volume, to close at $20.85 on May 11, 2015. Subsequent to the end of the class period, after the close on May 19, 2015, Etsy reported earnings for the first time as a publicly traded company. Reported earnings for the first quarter were below expectations as growth in "Growth Merchandise Sales (GMS)" declined substantially. In the after-hours market after the release of earnings, shares of Etsy were materially lower at $17.00 per share, down $4.00 from the day's close. If you purchased Etsy securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than July 13, 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. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail atclassmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Etsy Investigation." The firm may be reached at: Patrick Donovan, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 100161 Tel: (800) 575-0735 Fax: (213) 330-7152 Email: donovan@whafh.com EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: To Pay $2.1MM to Settle Software Glitch Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bar exam software provider Examsoft Worldwide Inc. will pay $2.1 million to settle class-action claims a glitch in its technology caused scores of prospective lawyers to fail the multiday test last year, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro gave her preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on May 12. A hearing on the agreement's final approval has been scheduled for Oct. 9, 2015. A problem with the exam was evident almost immediately last summer as scores of law graduates complained they were unable to file their completed first-day tests on the July 2014 bar exam. electronically. Examsoft said at the time that the problem was a processing issues, and that the integrity of the exam had not been effected. But the glitch appeared to lead to a marked declined both in the number of people who passed the test and the grades of those that did -- leading initially to a debate over the quality of legal education and even the students themselves. Several lawsuits followed and were ultimately combined into the class action. As previously reported by Courthouse News, the first day of the exam, July 29, consisted of a series of essay questions that take approximately six hours. To type the essays with a computer, rather than writing them longhand, test takers paid a fee ranging from $100 to $150 fee for ExamSoft's test- taking software. The software allowed test-takers to use their own laptops by turning off all other features of the computer, such as the ability to access notes or use the Internet. At the end of the testing period, it required test takers to upload their essays to a server without any further changes. But "ExamSoft was inexplicably unprepared for the volume of bar exams being uploaded to its servers following the first day of the July 2014 test," according to a typical complaint, filed in Cook County, Illinois in August 2014. "As a result, it could not confirm that test-takers' typed exams had been properly and timely submitted. This on the eve of the second day of the bar exam (the multistate exam). Instead of relaxing, doing a last minute review, or going to bed early, many bar applicants were stuck dealing with ExamSoft's technical glitch on the night before the second day of the most important exam of their lives," the lawsuit stated. Many people who tried to upload their exam were met with the error message, "Attention! Your answer file(s) did not upload," and spent the whole night frantically trying to contact ExamSoft's customer service, only to be met with a busy signal, the court documents said. Many of those who sued the company sought refunds of the fees they paid for the software. Under the proposed settlement, members of the class should receive a refund of about $90. The Class is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: Jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Jay P. Letkowitz, Esq. Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4970 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com joseph.serino@kirkland.com - and - Kristin Sheffeld-Whitehead, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1420 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 E-mail: kristin.sheffield-whitehead@kirkland.com The case is Amanda West, et al. v. Examsoft Worldwide Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22950-UU, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd in Process of Obtaining Settlement Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Commonwealth Edison Company and the plaintiff are in process of obtaining the approval of the court and the class of customers represented in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action lawsuit. On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint, which was denied in June 2014. On February 19, 2015, ComEd and the plaintiff agreed in principle to settle the suit for $5 million, which ComEd has recorded as a liability as of March 31, 2015. The parties are in process of obtaining the approval of the court and the class of customers represented in the suit. As ComEd is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, actual damages may differ from the estimated amount recorded, which may be material to ComEd's results of operations, cash flows, and financial position. EXPERIAN SERVICES: Accused of Scheming With Info Bounty Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Experian schemed with a "consumer bounty hunter" to sell financial records to a banned debt relief servicer, devastating people's credit scores, a class claims in Federal Court. Sue Rodriguez and 12 other named plaintiffs sued Experian Services Corp. and two affiliates, CPL Holdings dba Core Digital Media, LowerMyBills.com and three people, including a former Experian attorney, on May 13. LowerMyBills.com, a marketing lead generator, "lured, wrangled and captured" consumers' personal and financial information and sold and traded it to third parties, Rodriguez claims. In exchange for "bounty" payments, the parties agreed to share additional customer information with LowerMyBills, according to the 41-page lawsuit. From 2007 to 2012, LowerMyBills and the defendants used Experian's position in the consumer credit industry, coupled with promises to help consumers erase their debts, to induce consumers to provide Experian with their personal financial information and to trust the companies to unite them with an "approved debt relief partner," the class claims. Credit Alliance Group, of Dallas, acted as a partner from 2007 to 2013 though the company was legally prohibited from engaging in debt relief services, the class claims. The class claims the defendants sold thousands of consumers' personal and financial information to Credit Alliance Group (CAG) in exchange for information about CAG's customers. CAG promised to hold customers' funds in trust and use it to negotiate debt settlements, the class claims, "at pennies on the dollar." Thousands of consumers allegedly drew money from their retirement accounts despite early withdrawal penalties to resolve their debts and improve credit scores with Experian. But CAG's president and CEO failed to place the money in trust accounts and commingled and used the money for personal expenses, the class claims. After CAG filed for bankruptcy in 2013, it was revealed that the entire business and partnership was a "sham" and that thousands of consumers lost millions of dollars of personal savings and retirement funds, the lawsuit states. "At present, the Experian defendants continued to fail to disclose to CAG's customer victims the exact nature of the role Experian played in the CAG scheme and have made no effort to disclose or repair the harms to hundreds and thousands of honest, hard-working Americans whose life savings and credit scores ('with Experian') have been devastated as a result," class claims. "In some circumstances these defendants appear to continue to attempt to shield and hide their deceptive trade practice schemes by spuriously claiming that such fraudulent acts are protected industry trade secrets." In response to consumers' complaints, the class claims, the defendants said they have "no control" over third-party partners' use of the personal information. CAG is not listed as a party to the complaint. An Experian subsidiary in 2013 separately sold "hundreds of thousands" of consumers' names, Social Security numbers and other "sensitive" personal information to third parties in Vietnam tied to identity theft, the class claims. The proposed class, estimated at more than 100 members, seeks punitive damages and restitution for violation of the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, false advertising and intentional misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Schwaba, Esq. Edward Nicholas, Esq. SCHWABA LAW FIRM 212 South Tryon Street, Suite 1725 Charlotte, NC 28281 Telephone: (704) 370-0220 - and - R. Kevin Fisher, Esq. Los Angeles, CA EXXON: Public Comment Period on $225MM Settlement Ends ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Catalini, writing for The Associated Press, reports that New Jersey residents are one step closer to finding out whether a court will accept a $225 million settlement proposed by Republican Gov. Chris Christie and his administration in a lawsuit to hold ExxonMobil responsible for environmental damage in the state. June 5 marked the end of a 60-day public comment period on the proposed settlement with Exxon over pollution at two petroleum treatment centers in northern New Jersey, 16 other Exxon facilities and the company's retail gas stations across the state. The proposal has touched off a public feud between the Christie administration and Democrats, who control the Legislature and say the governor should have bargained for more money in damages. Democrats are urging the court to reject the settlement and set damages at roughly $2.5 billion. The state Department of Environmental Protection said about 8,800 comments have been filed. Department spokesman Larry Hajna said the high number includes many form letters and emails. In litigation going back to 2004, the state argued that ExxonMobil contaminated land at two sites in Bayonne and Linden. The court agreed the company was liable, and the question before Superior Court Judge Michael Hogan earlier this year was how much Exxon owed the state. The state filed paperwork with the court claiming nearly $9 billion in damages. But before the judge ruled, the Christie administration and the Irving, Texas-based corporation announced the proposed settlement, angering Democrats who said the state was accepting pennies on the dollar. The Christie administration pushed back, saying that the settlement figure would make it among the largest in the state's history and that the nearly $9 billion figure would have led to an appeal and delayed any payout to the state. In addition, the administration argues, Exxon is still required to pay for cleaning up the sites. Just how much cleanup will cost Exxon is not clear. Current law requires the first $50 million of the settlement amount to go toward cleanup. Democratic state Sen. Ray Lesniak says the proposed $2.5 billion in damages is a "very solid" figure but the $5.4 billion in compensatory damages mentioned in court documents -- and constituting the remainder of the nearly $9 billion -- is "less precise." In his public comment filed with the department, Senate President Steve Sweeney rebukes the administration and takes issue with the inclusion of gas stations and the 16 other sites. "The Senate vehemently opposes ratification of the consent judgment as there is no verifiable rationale offered for the inclusion of the 16 additional Exxon sites and the approximately 1,700 retail service stations," he said. The department will review the public comments and prepare a response. The agency will then determine if any information from the comments would require reconsideration of the settlement proposal. If not, it will be sent to the judge for final approval. FOREST LABORATORIES: Limits Namenda IR Availability, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Drug Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04152-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to limit and restrain the availability of generic versions of Memantine Hydrochloride (Namenda IR) and fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price at which direct purchasers would pay for Namenda or its AB-rated generic equivalents at supra- competitive levels. Forest Laboratories, LLC is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the development, marketing, and distribution of branded pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Joseph Opper, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Facsimile: (212) 764-6620 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com jopper@garwingerstein.com nsilverman@garwingerstein.com - and - David C. Raphael Jr., Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP 3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111 Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Facsimile: (318)487-1741 E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com FORMFACTOR INC: No Motion to Certify Class in Ex-Employee's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that no motion to certify a class has been brought in the lawsuit by a former employee. In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present. In February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying the scope of the putative class. A second amended complaint was filed. The parties participated in a mediation during the third quarter of fiscal 2014, which did not result in a settlement. Procedurally, the case is still in the early stages of litigation. No motion to certify a class has been brought and no defined class has been certified. The Company currently believes that any settlement reached would be in an amount that is not material to the Company's financial statements. The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit and, based on available information, believes it has significant defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. If the matter is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys' fees in defending the lawsuit. FOUR BLR: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Santiago Blanco v. Four BLR Doors, Corp., Israel La Red, M & A Windows, Inc. and Jonathan R. Pipping, Case No. 1:15-cv-22050-UU (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of selling windows, doors, and storefronts in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Brian Roller, Esq. SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER 3876 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 966-2483 Facsimile: (954) 374-6974 E-mail: broller@szalaw.com FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued for Not Paying Mgmt. Trainees' Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's Electronics stiffs sales associates and management trainees for overtime, a class action claims in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Case -------------------------------------------------- Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that no class has been certified at this time in the case, Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc. On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an additional claim for unjust enrichment. On February 4, 2014, the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6, 2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act. The relief she requested is the same. On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois. On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue. On December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the complaint. On April 16, 2015, the court granted Garmin's motion in part and dismissed with prejudice (1) Mr. Katz's (but not Mrs. Katz's) claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (2) the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, (3) the plaintiffs' negligence claim and (4) the plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim. No class has been certified at this time. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Brian Meyers Case --------------------------------------------------- Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that no class has been certified at this time in the case, Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Garmin International, Inc. Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification, a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin products, and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive counts. On March 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On April 7, 2015, Garmin filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. No class has been certified at this time. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Heard Argument on Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has heard argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. "On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit," the Company said. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Hialeah Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the case filed by City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System. In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. "On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of March 4, 2015," the Company said. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. "We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Entered Into Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plantiffs in the cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to the Company's subsidiary. "Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA," the Company said. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance arrangements" with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The Company said, "The McCarn case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied, but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted our motion, and in July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in late November 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plantiffs in the cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to our subsidiary. This settlement had no impact on our financial position or results of operations." GENWORTH FINANCIAL: All Claims in Goodman & Brown Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants in the case filed by Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown. "In December 2009, one of our former non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary's officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings, Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York," the Company said. "Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014. On April 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the District Court's denial of their motion to certify a class, which we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' motion. Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants." GLOBAL POWER: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Wolf Haldenstein ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased shares of Global Power Equipment Group Inc. ("Global Power" or the "Company") (NYSE:GLPW) during the period between March 9, 2015 and May 6, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on shares purchased within the class period to contact us immediately at (800) 575-0735 or email classmember@whafh.com prior as the lead plaintiff deadline is July 13, 2015. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the following (i) the Company's cost of sales in its financial statements for the annual period ended December 31, 2014 were understated; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 6, 2015, the Company announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filing that "[i]t will delay the filing of its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2015 and restate its financial results for the annual period ended December 31, 2014. As a result, the Company is also withdrawing its previously issued earnings guidance for 2015 at this time. On May 5, 2015, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Global Power, in consultation with its outside advisors and management, concluded that the financial statements for the annual period ended December 31, 2014 should not be relied upon because of accounting errors affecting the fourth quarter of 2014 that were discovered during the first quarter 2015 financial review process. Those errors resulted in an understatement of the Company's cost of sales in the quarterly and annual periods ended December 31, 2014." Following this news, shares of Global Power fell $4.05 per share, over 33%, to close at $8.19 on May 7, 2015. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "CHC investigation." GOLD AND SILVER: Dancers to Be Asked to Join Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Chris Hurst, writing for WDBJ7 reported that a group of exotic dancers suing the Gold and Silver nightclub could get much larger. Currently three women sued the club and its owner because they don't get paid minimum wage. In Federal Court, lawyers exchanged a list of more than 70 past and present dancers who might be interested in joining a class action suit. The lawsuit says most nights, the dancers ended up losing money from fees, including one to use the jukebox. The club says the women are independent contractors and not employees. A jury trial is still scheduled for later this year, but another suit against the club was settled out of court. GOOGLE INC: Accused of Not Redeeming Value of Play Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Google refuses to redeem the value of Google Play gift cards if they are less than $10, a class action claims in Santa Clara County Court. GREENPOINT AG: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Daniels, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Greenpoint AG, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02365-JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Greenpoint AG, LLC sells agricultural products and maintains retail locations in Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC 101 North Highland Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Shaun D. Hanschen, Esq. BLATON, RICE, NICKELL, COZEAN & COLLINS, LLC 219S. Kingshighway, P.O. Box 805 Sikeston, MO 63801 Telephone: (573) 471-1000 Facsimile: (573) 471-1012 E-mail: shanschen@blantonlaw.com HAWAII: Part-time Teachers, Subs Awarded Another $46-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------- Rick Daysog, writing for Hawaii News Now, reported that on the heels of $14 million settlement over back pay, two state judges have awarded substitute and part-time teachers another $46 million. Earlier, Circuit Judges Karl Sakamoto and Edwin Nacino ruled that the state Department of Education underpaid the teachers over a seven-year period starting in 2005. "What the DOE did to these teachers is really shameless," said attorney Paul Alston, who filed the class-action lawsuits. "It makes no sense to cheat them . . . over a few pennies or a few dollars a day. They're the backbone of the system." By law, the pay for the nonunion subs and part-timers are supposed to linked to the wages full-time teachers earn under their union contracts. But the DOE wound up using a much lower pay scale for years. Under rulings, 20,000 teachers will receive an average of about $2,300. But since the awards are based on the hours worked, some teachers will receive as little as $5 while others will get up to $10,000. Alston said many of the class-action members have struggled financially and some have left the teaching profession. Maui resident David Gardner, one of the original plaintiffs, said he was forced out. "They more than cut my workload in half in retaliation. They put me on a blacklist. I'm still blacklisted," he said. "I felt that they didn't really care . . . they were arrogant and that they were above the law." The rulings are also significant because the teachers were awarded interest going back seven years. "The interest that is calculated by the court is calculated by Judge Sakamoto is nearly $14 million. In addition, there's another $9 or $10 million in interest that we think is owed," Alston said. The DOE says it paid the teachers the correct amounts and sources said it will likely appeal. But any appeal could add millions of dollars more in interest payments. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hearst Communications sells its magazine subscribers' private information without permission to data miners and others, a class action claims in New York Federal Court. HERBALIFE LTD: Issues Statement on Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Kapusta, writing for The Celebrity Cafe, reported that Herbalife Ltd., the global nutrition company, accused of operating a pyramid scheme issued a statement regarding the court's final approval of its class action settlement with former distributors. "As we have consistently stated, we believe that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate to class members," said Herbalife. The controversial nutrition company also noted the findings of the court that the low number of claimants was not surprising. According to Herbalife, substantial survey results showed that most people join the company as discount consumers of its products. Herbalife class action settlement details The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to the $15 million settlement related to the class action lawsuit filed by Dana Bostick and other distributors against Herbalife. In a legal filing, Eric Robin of Kurtzman Carson Consultants indicated that 7,547 class-action claims were filed against Herbalife by its former distributors. They claimed that the company operates a pyramid scheme and misleads distributors regarding their potential profits. Robin said 114 claimants would receive more than $10,000 in the business opportunity category, 329 claimants would receive over $5,000 and $1,655 claimants would receive more than $1,000. The total potential payout for the claimants is around $7.39 million. Approximately 30% of the settlement funds ($5.25 million) would go to attorney fees. Herbalife also allocated as much as $2.5 million to pay class- action members who filed valid return claims for unused and unopened products. According to Robin, the total value of the return claims was $938,280. In October, Herbalife agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit filed by Bostick. The company emphasized that the settlement "does not contain an admission of liability or wrongdoing." Herbalife also asserted that the case against it had no merit. At the time, Herbalife explained that it decided to settle the class-action lawsuit because of the potential cost and distraction, disruption and burden of prolonged litigation on the company and its management team. Herbalife remains under investigation Herbalife disclosed in its recent regulatory filing that it is still under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The filing indicated that the DOJ asked the company to provide information about certain members and others in connection with the allegations of its business practices. The company also previously received inquiries from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other government agencies. Herbalife anticipated that these government agencies may "determine to seek information from the company and other persons relating to these same or other allegations" in the future. HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT, "D'Addario" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard D'Addario v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-11931 (D. Mass., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are in the business of managing and overseeing the operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other travel facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Ian Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (800) 529-4444 Facsimile: (888) 529-4449 - and - Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (212) 838-3333 Facsimile: (212) 838-3735 E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com jak@klafterolsen.com HOLLISTER CO: Decision Makes State Courts Favorable, Attys. Say --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reported that a recent New Jersey appellate decision snubbing controversial class identification requirements when certifying low-value consumer class actions will further drive plaintiffs to keep such suits in state court and poses due process problems for defendant companies, some attorneys say. The state Appellate Division in a precedential opinion on May 13 backed certification in a consumer class action against clothing retailer Hollister Co. over expired gift cards, rejecting the company's arguments that the court should follow the lead of the Third Circuit and weave the ascertainability doctrine -- which concerns whether class members can be readily identified using objective criteria -- into certification decisions. Drawing a plaintiff-friendly line in the sand, the court not only said ascertainability can't play a role in the certification of consumer class actions that involve lower dollar amounts, but it also openly doubted that the doctrine should play any role in state court and contended that it was being "exploited by defendants in unsuitable cases to evade liability." The decision reinforces a perception that defendants have the deck stacked against them in state court, according to Christopher J. Dalton, a shareholder with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. "It's going to certainly encourage plaintiffs in so far as possible to keep all class actions that they can in New Jersey state court," he said. The suit targets Hollister for voiding $25 gift cards that didn't have an expiration date, according to the May 13 opinion. The company had distributed the cards in December 2009 as a promotion to customers who spent $75 or more, and about $3 million worth of the cards were eventually voided. Siding with named plaintiff Vincent Daniels, the panel noted that New Jersey Court Rule 4:32-1, which covers the requirements for maintaining a class action, is supposed to be liberally construed in favor of certification. Hollister had argued that ascertainability was an implicit requirement in the rule and that Daniels couldn't meet it. The company said that, without ascertainability, it couldn't test class membership, absent class members couldn't opt out, and "the preclusive effect of any judgment will be unknowable and unenforceable," according to the opinion. However, Rule 4:32-1 has never been interpreted to require that a class be ascertainable to win certification, the panel found. "We find that this federal doctrine as urged here imposes far too heavy a burden on class certification where the purported injuries to class members are so minimal as to preclude the likelihood they would be individually asserted," the court said. The opinion creates a kind of "due process lite" that doesn't really allow defendants to challenge claims of class membership, according to Dalton. He added that court gave short shrift to legitimate concerns such as the class definition's inclusion of consumers who tossed the gift cards because they were told they had expired. "Saying we don't have to worry about how class members will be identified is just kicking the can down the road," Dalton said. After the Third Circuit's 2013 decision in Carrera v. Bayer Corp. toughened the standard for ascertainability, there was already a sense that class action plaintiffs were trying to avoid federal court, but decision tips the scales to an extreme degree, suggested Alida Kass, chief counsel of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute. "This went from the federal court being somewhat hostile territory for class actions that maybe don't meet the requirements for class certification to just opposite ends of the spectrum, from very rigorous scrutiny on whether the class is ascertainable to no scrutiny," she said, referring to the difference between state and federal courts. Bringing a class action in the state just became even easier, added Marcus Rayner, president of the NJCJI. "If this is allowed to stand, I think it's 'Katy, bar the door' for class actions in New Jersey," he said. However, the appellate court said in the opinion that class actions have historically been a vehicle to look out for "the smaller guy." Rebuffing the ascertainability doctrine holds true to that mission, according to John Keefe of Keefe Bartels. "This decision is indeed a good result for [New Jersey] consumers who serve as the little guy to level the playing field and keeps the courthouse doors open for adjudication of these claims without fictitious barriers of judicial creation not contemplated by our rules," Keefe said. Ascertainability has been taken too far at the federal level, and recent Third Circuit decisions even suggest a possible rollback of the judge-made doctrine, according to Bruce D. Greenberg, a member of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC. "[The decision] is certainly important at the moment where the Third Circuit has really allowed ascertainability to become the altar on which we sacrifice consumer class actions," he said. And while the decision may be helpful to plaintiffs, its impact will be narrower than defense-side advocates contend, according to Henry Wolfe of the The Wolf Law Firm LLC. There have long been incentives to filing in state court, and most class actions involving such over-the-counter transactions will still find their way to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, which allows for removal when aggregate class damages are $5 million or more and where at least one defendant and one plaintiff are based in different states, Wolfe said. Still, home state and local controversy exceptions in CAFA can allow class actions with specific characteristics to remain in state court no matter the damages, and the decision otherwise means worsened stakes for businesses that might not be able to survive a multimillion-dollar judgment, even if it happens to be less than $5 million, according to Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, who chairs Sills Cummis & Gross PC's class action practice group. "I don't think it's the last word," Greenbaum said. "I think something this important will have to come from the highest court, and I suspect it will be appealed." One potential benefit to both defendants and plaintiffs is a footnote in the decision stating that the appellate court going forward will "liberally indulge" bids to appeal certification decisions, which aren't appealable as of right, when denial of class status essentially ends the case, when certification places heavy pressure on the defendant to settle or when allowing an appeal will help clarify a fundamental area of the law. Those standards will probably result in the court granting interlocutory appeals on most certification decisions, which makes sense given the impact of such rulings, according to Greenbaum. "A decision to grant or deny class certification is outcome- determinative from a practical perspective and should get interlocutory review before the costs go out of control and people are forced to make settlement decisions without a full explanation of their legal rights," he said. The case is Vincent Daniels v. Hollister Co., case number A-3629-13, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Gives Up License ---------------------------------------------------- Dan Scanlan, writing for Jacksonville.com, reported that embattled dentist from Jacksonville, Florida, Howard Schneider, who closed his Southside office after weeks of protests by parents of patients and former patients, a patient parents' lawsuit and a state investigation, has voluntarily relinquished his licence to practice. Schneider told Times-Union news partner First Coast News he had to close because he had no patients and no staff after the protests. The Florida Department of Health's License Verification website confirmed that the dentist's license status has been voluntarily relinquished pending board action. The action follows his voluntarily resignation on May 7 from the Wolfson Children's Hospital, where he had staff privileges, according to hospital spokeswoman Vikki Mioduszewski. Schneider requested a "Voluntary Relinquishment" of his license from the Department of Health. The action means a licensed practitioner has offered to relinquish his license to practice in Florida and "agrees not to practice" pending approval of this request, according to the state website. The request will be heard during the disciplinary proceedings segment of the next state Board of Dentistry meeting, at the Hilton University of Florida, 1714 SW 34th St. in Gainesville. The dentist, originally licensed to practice on Aug. 10, 1962, is facing several challenges. He had large groups of protesters outside his office at 1871 University Blvd. S. who claimed that he pulled more teeth than necessary and did substandard work on their children. Many also claimed he injured and threatened their children during treatment. The Florida Attorney General's medicaid fraud control unit is investigating Schneider and had investigators interviewing protester parents. Some parents filed a class-action lawsuit on May 6, saying their children were mistreated and hurt by the dentist. And his wife filed a divorce lawsuit, demanding alimony. HSBC: 7th Cir. Grants New Trial in $2.4-Bil. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Economic Times reported that a federal appeals court has awarded HSBC a new trial in a securities class action suit that ended with a $2.46 billion judgment against the company. The ruling was made by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Europe's largest bank said it argued the verdict in the case, which dates to 2009, was defective and should be reversed. The company said it looks forward to the new proceedings. In 2013 a division of HSBC was ordered to pay $2.46 billion in a class action lawsuit that said its Household International mortgage lending business violated federal securities laws by misleading investors about its lending practices, the quality of its home loans and its financial accounting in 2001 and 2002. HSBC bought Household International in 2003. The acquisition made HSBC the largest subprime mortgage lender in the US at the time, but it resulted in billions of dollars in losses leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. The lawsuit also included former executives William Aldinger, David Schoenholz and Gary Gilmer. The judgment included $1.48 billion in damages and almost $1 billion in pre-judgment interest. HSBC also said on it is exploring options for its business in Brazil, and may sell the division. IG INVESTMENT: Costs Principles in Class Suits Not Asymmetrical --------------------------------------------------------------- Margot Finley and David Di Paolo, in an article for Lexology.com, reported that in the recent case of Fischer v. IG, 2015 ONSC 2491, the Divisional Court has settled any debate as to whether s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 ("CPA") is intended to apply asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs; it is not. Section 31(1) of the CPA reads: "31.(1) In exercising its discretion with respect to costs under subsection 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court may consider whether the class proceeding was a test case, raised a novel point of law or involved a matter of public interest." Over the years, class action plaintiffs' counsel has attempted to argue that this section of the CPA is intended to provide protection only to plaintiffs and not defendants. They have argued that it is not open to the court to reduce or deny a costs award to a successful plaintiff. Plaintiffs have relied upon the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Class Actions (1982), in which the Commission noted a concern that the risks inherent in the costs regime at the time operated to discourage potential representative plaintiffs from commencing meritorious class actions. Though the Commission recommended a "no costs" regime, the legislature instead adopted the ordinary costs rules that govern individual actions. These rules were, however, adjusted in two ways: (1) consideration of the three factors identified in s. 31(1) of the CPA and (2) the availability of the Class Proceedings Fund to cover adverse costs awards against representative plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel also relied upon Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co. (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 451 (OCJ) in which Winkler J. (as he then was) declined to award costs to the successful defendant in light of the s. 31(1) factors. He stated, "The case law reflects the Court's inclination to refrain from awarding costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs in class proceedings where some or all of the criteria in s. 31(1) are present." The argument that s. 31(1) of the CPA should operate asymmetrically has been rejected before. In Holley v.Northern Trust Co., 2014 ONSC 3047, Perell J. said in respect of s. 31(1): "An adverse costs system is what the Legislature intended; it did not intend a costs regime that removes the risk. And it did not impose a public interest burden on defendants, who are also entitled to access to justice, by imposing an asymmetrical system of costs." In Fischer v. IG, the plaintiffs had originally been unsuccessful on the certification motion. The defendant mutual fund companies had argued that the proposed class action did not meet the "preferable procedure" criterion in s. 5(1)(d) of the CPA -- required for a class action to be certified -- because a probe by the Ontario Securities Commission that resulted in settlements totaling over $150 million with five mutual fund companies had accomplished what the proposed class action intended to do -- compensate investors. On the certification motion, Perell J. agreed with the defendants' position and declined to certify the action. Given the novel nature of the argument and the fact that the action would have been certified but for the novel argument, the motion judge ordered that each side should bear its own costs. The certification decision was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court and the action was ultimately certified. Perell J. was asked to revisit his costs decision given the plaintiffs' ultimate success on certification. The plaintiffs claimed $500,000 for the certification motion. The motion judge considered the issue de novoand again decided that there should be no order as to costs given the novelty of the arguments. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal. Harvison Young J., sitting as the Divisional Court, dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. She held, "I see no support, either in the wording or legislative history of s. 31(1), or in the case law, for the proposition that the discretion may only be applied asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs." The plaintiffs also argued that the principle of access to justice demands that costs arising from novelty must be asymmetrically applied. Harvison Young J. acknowledged that access to justice is important and is a factor to be considered in costs decisions, but it is not a principle that operates only to the benefit of plaintiffs. She found no support for the proposition that access to justice concerns must always entitle plaintiffs to their costs of successful certification motions. David Di Paolo and Margot Finley acted as counsel for the defendant AIC Ltd. in this matter. The lawyers may be reached at: Margot Finley, Esq. David Di Paolo, Esq. BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West, 44th Floor Toronto, ON Canada M5H 3Y4 Email: mfinley@blg.com DDiPaolo@blg.com IHEARTMEDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04067 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the owners of sound recordings of musical performances that were fixed and recorded before February 15, 1972, whose rights in pre-1972 recordings have been infringed and violated by iHeartMedia Inc. iHeartMedia, Inc. operates an internet radio service that streams music and other programming to its paid subscribers via the internet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard W. Foster, Esq. Matthew Galin, Esq. FOSTER P.C. 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 726-1600 Facsimile: (866) 470-5738 E-mail: hfoster@fosterpc.com mgalin@fosterpc.com - and - Anthony L. Abner, Esq. ABNER & FULLERTON LLP 32565 Golden Lantern Blvd., Suite 216 Dana Point, CA 92945 Telephone: (323) 839-3291 Facsimile: (323) 656-7155 E-mail: tonyabner@gmail.com - and - Justin Sobodash, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN SOBODASH 8335 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 302 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (323) 337-9010 Facsimile: (323) 656-7155 E-mail: Justin@Sobodashlaw.com INSULET CORP: July 6 Deadline to Lodge Lead Plaintiff Bid --------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers of Insulet Corporation securities from February 27, 2013 through April 30, 2015 (the "Class Period") of the important July 6, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Insulet investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Insulet class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-608.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. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Insulet was experiencing slower demand for its products; (2) Insulet was facing issues with its sales and marketing efforts; (3) consequently, Insulet experienced unevenness in its financial performance; and (4) as a result, defendants' positive statements about the Insulet's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit 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 July 6, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-608.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. INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of IntraLinks software dumped their own shares for $78 million while concealing information that caused the stock to sink by 45 percent, shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court. ISORAY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Rosen Law Firm --------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of IsoRay, Inc. (NYSE: ISR) securities between May 20, 2015 and May 21, 2015, both dates inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for IsoRay investors under the federal securities laws. To join the IsoRay class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-623.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 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding IsoRay's Celsium-131 isotope seeds and mesh for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers. When the true details entered the market, shares of IsoRay fell $1.10 per share or over 35% to close at $2.02 per share on May 21, 2015, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-623.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. J ROMAN: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Segovia, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. J. Roman Incorporated d/b/a Suds Car Wash, and Jesse Roman, Case No. 1:15-cv-04764 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com JC CHRISTENSEN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that affirming dismissal of a class action against J.C. Christensen & Associates, the 2nd Circuit ruled May 14 that a debt collector need not warn of possible tax consequences when making a settlement offer for less than the full amount owed. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Michael Korsinsky, Esq. Joseph P. Garland, Esq. KORSINSKY & KLEIN, LLP 2926 Ave. L Brooklyn, NY 11210 Telephone: (212) 495-8133 The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Jonathan B. Bruno, Esq. KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN LLP 120 Broadway, 14th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 980-9600 Facsimile: (212) 980-9291 E-mail: jbruno@kbrlaw.com - and - Michael A. Klutho, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, PA 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 E-mail: mklutho@bassford.com The appellate case is Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-2240, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. JP MORGAN: Sends Cash Refunds in McDonald's Debt Card Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Bob Kalinowski, writing for the CitizensVoice.com, reported that mega banking chain J.P. Morgan Chase has suddenly started cutting checks to plaintiffs in a local class-action lawsuit against McDonald's that claims the workers were burdened by being paid exclusively by fee-laden debit-cards. "We have decided to refund you for all fees we charged on your Chase Prepaid Card . . . We are sending you the attached check to refund you for these fees," said the letter from Chase Prepaid Card Services. West Pittston attorney Michael Cefalo, who filed suit in June 2013 against a couple who owns 16 local McDonald's restaurants, questioned the timing of Chase's surprise move. The case was certified as a class-action suit. "It's like someone who robbed you and then gave the you the money back when they got caught," Cefalo said at his office. "Chase doesn't want to be embarrassed. Chase wants this to go away." Cefalo represents 2,380 plaintiffs in the case against franchise owners Albert and Carol Mueller, of Clarks Summit, alleging they violated state wage laws. The case was certified as a class-action suit on May 14, a day before the checks were dated, Cefalo pointed out. Cefalo has a separate action against J.P. Morgan Chase on behalf of the plaintiffs who were minors at the time they agreed to work at McDonald's and get paid with a Chase debit card -- the only pay method available. Cefalo said Chase gave no advance warning of the refunds. A spokeswoman for the Muellers said they were unaware Chase planned to issue any refunds. Emails sent to national and regional press offices of Chase were not returned. One plaintiff who was a minor while employed at McDonald's is Samantha Earley, who admitted she was a naive 17-year-old when she worked at the Sans Souci Parkway location in Hanover Township in 2011. Her mom even was upset with her, thinking she chose to get paid by a Chase debit card. "I already had my own bank account, but they didn't allow me to use my own bank account," Earley, 21, said. "They said, 'Get a card or you're not getting paid.'" Earley received a check for $10.50 from Chase. She said that is a mere pittance of the fees such actually incurred, as she had to routinely pay fees for ATM withdrawals and balance inquiries. It was a struggle, as she was only paid $7.25 an hour, she said. The payroll cards issued to local McDonald's employees carried fees for nearly every type of transaction, according to Cefalo's lawsuit, including a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 to check the balance, 75 cents per online bill payment and $10 per month if the card is left inactive for more than three months. Cefalo noted there isn't a Chase bank within 55 miles of Wilkes- Barre, and fees were inescapable. He thinks the decision by Chase to issue checks "bolsters our case." Cefalo said at least 50 of the plaintiffs called him since, saying they received refunds from Chase, which ranged from one penny to $140. He told them not to cash the checks as the lawsuit plays out. After Cefalo filed the lawsuit, it quickly gained national attention, including a front-page story in The New York Times and an investigation by federal officials. Soon after, the Muellers announced they were abandoning the pay practice and would give employees the choice of being paid by check, direct deposit or by payroll card. In September 2013, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned employers that paying workers exclusively with a debit card was not legal. KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Court Dismisses MLB Teams From "Senne" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that a labor dispute between minor-league baseball players and Major League Baseball may be adjudicated in California, but only for claims against the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees, a federal judge ruled on May 20. In a putative class action, lead plaintiff Aaron Senne -- who played for the Miami Marlins organization from 2010 to 2013 -- claims Major League Baseball underpays its amateur players. He originally sued three Major League clubs, Major League Baseball and its commissioner Bud Selig in 2014, eventually adding all 30 Major League teams as defendants. Ten of those teams moved to dismiss the action, claiming they were not subject to jurisdiction in California. The teams that sought dismissal included the Atlanta Braves, the Boston Red Sox, the Chicago White Sox, the Detroit Tigers, the New York Yankees, the Philadelphia Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Tampa Bay Rays, the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles. The teams argued that intermittent travel, communications and various other activities in California were not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction there. But the minor-league players argued that the Major League has "deep roots in California" and derives "substantial income" from the state. The players also argued that the "highly interdependent nature" of the Major League supports general jurisdiction, especially because the case involves "a universal scheme enacted by all defendants to depress salaries." In the court's 105-page ruling issued May 20, U.S District Judge Joseph Spero said that the Supreme Court's recent guidance on the theory of general jurisdiction "has made clear that the concept of 'home' in the context of general jurisdiction should be understood narrowly." He said that despite the MLB's lucrative licensing deals, "California cannot be considered home to any of these clubs," because their travel, business and scouting activities in the state "do not represent such a significant portion of their activities that their presence in California would be analogous to being domiciled in California or having their principal place of business in California." For that reason, Spero said, there is no general jurisdiction of the teams in California. He did find, however, that specific jurisdiction in California applies to the Pirates, the Tigers and the Yankees, since the named plaintiffs asserting claims against those teams all reside in the Golden State and have performed offseason work there over the past several years. Spero dismissed the claims brought against the other seven teams for lack of personal jurisdiction. Neither side could be reached for comment on May 20. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 205-2805 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Elise Bloom, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square Eighth Avenue & 41st Street New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3410 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com The case is Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. KIND LLC: Removed "Molina" Class Suit to Middle District Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Dawn Molina, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kind, LLC, Case No. 15-CA-3493, was removed from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15- cv-01098-CEH-TBM to the proceeding. The Defendants asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred Villoch III, Esq. SAVAGE, COMBS & VILLOCH, PLLC 412 E. Madison St, Ste 1120 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 251-4890 E-mail: alfred@savagelaw.us - and - Brenda M. Combs, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP Suite 3200, 201 N Franklin St. Tampa, FL 33601-0380 Telephone: (813) 221-2626 Facsimile: (813) 221-7335 E-mail: bcombs@wsmslaw.com - and - Robert Kevin Savage, Esq. The Savage Law Firm, PA Suite 1235, 100 S Ashley Dr Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 251-4890 E-mail: bert@savagelaw.us The Defendant is represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E. Borders, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com kborders@mayerbrown.com - and - David J. Walz, Esq. Robert W. Pass, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA 4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000, PO Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 Telephone: (813) 223-7000 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 E-mail: dwalz@cfjblaw.com rpass@cfjblaw.com KING OF CLUBS: Sued for Charging Exotic Dancers $60 per Shift Fee ----------------------------------------------------------------- King of Clubs Productions and Dancer the Club, in the Bronx, stiff exotic dancers for overtime and charge them $60 a shift for a "facilities use fee," dancers claim in a class action in Bronx County Supreme Court. L'OREAL USA: Falsely Advertised "Lush Lash System," Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- The makers of an eyelash makeup product are being sued over allegations its product doesn't grow eyelashes at the rate advertised. Sonia Severino filed the lawsuit on May 1 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against L'Oreal USA and Urban Decay Cosmetics claiming the companies falsely advertised the "Lush Lash System" product. According to the lawsuit, the companies claim the product will grow eyelashes by 25 percent in two weeks, 40 percent in four weeks and 63 percent in six weeks. The companies claimed the product contains a "growth accelerating serum," the complaint says. "However, nothing in the Lush Lash System is demonstrated to actually make eye lashes grow, particularly at the rates claim by (the companies)," the lawsuit said. "(Severino) and other similarly situated consumers have been harmed in the amount they paid for the Lush Lash System." Serverino is seeking class status for those who purchased the Lush Lash System, and is also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. Severino is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- at Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, in San Diego and C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC in New York City. LA CHEMICAL: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Medina, Hector Medina, Agustin Martinez, Patricio Jimenez and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. La Chemical, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00235 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. La Chemical, LLC provides services to the oil and gas production facilities in South Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop W, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com LEGALZOOM.COM: North Carolina Court Junks Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Mack Sperling, writing for The National Law Review, reported that there are probably some of you who lie awake at night wondering whether Leagalzoom's offering of do it yourself lawyering products will be found to be the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in North Carolina. For those few of you, that uncertainty will continue. At the end of, Judge Gale issued an opinion in Bergenstock v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., 2015 NCBC 49, dismissing a putative class action by Plaintiffs seeking to represent all North Carolina residents who purchased Legalzoom products or services. The claims were for UPL, unjust enrichment, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Judge dismissed the complaint, but he did not make a ruling as to Legalzoom's business model, nor did he address the question whether its services constitute UPL. The resolution of that issue will have to come in the still pending case brought by LegalZoom against the NC State Bar: LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. North Carolina State Bar. The reason for the dismissal in the Bergenstock case was the full faith and credit given to the settlement of a similar class action in 2012 in California (known as the Webster case). Webster had sued Legalzoom on behalf of a nationwide class. The Webster Settlement The Webster settlement covered all claims asserted or that could have been asserted [in that case] arising out of the LegalZoom website, any materials available on or through the LegalZoom website . . . the unauthorized practice of law, or the purchase or use of documents prepared through LegalZoom. In consideration for the settlement, LegalZoom agreed to provide sixty days of free enrollment in its prepaid legal services Programs. As Judge Gale described those Programs (known as the LegalZoom Legal Advantage Plus Program [for individuals] and the Business Advantage Pro Program [for businesses]), they involve: services provided by licensed attorneys, including telephone consultations; review and written summary of legal documents; an annual legal checkup (which would be provided to Webster class members in the free sixty-day period), including a written summary and recommendations for legal documents and strategies; a ten percent discount on all LegalZoom products; access to the LegalZoom form library; electronic document storage; and a twenty- five percent discount on legal services not included under the Programs, but provided by a participating firm. The challenge presented by the Bergenstock putative class was that those Programs were not available in North Carolina. That is true, as the NC State Bar has refused to approve the Programs. That refusal is the subject of litigation between the State Bar and LegalZoom. The Settlement dealt with members who did not live in states where those Programs were available by providing them with the lesser of (i) $75.00, or (ii) half of the current base price of the document that the class member had purchased from LegalZoom. The Bergenstock Plaintiffs said that they had not received due process in the Webster settlement because there was no counsel representing their interests and there was no named class representative who had interests in common with them. They further argued that the California Court approving the settlement had not considered the adequacy of the alternative payment to the class members who did not have the LegalZoom payments available to them. They asserted that the settlement was not entitled to full faith and credit as to them. Full Faith And Credit To Class Action Settlements The main road block faced by the Plaintiffs challenging the effect of the Webster settlement lies in a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that "a judgment entered in a class action, like any other judgment entered in a state judicial proceeding, is presumptively entitled to full faith and credit." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 374 (1996), under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 (2014). The North Carolina appellate courts have accordingly held that courts should apply only a "very limited" scope of review when determining whether a foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, with the inquiry limited to whether jurisdictional and due process considerations were "fully and fairly litigated and finally decided" by the court rendering judgment. Op. Par. 32 (citing Boyles v. Boyles, 308 N.C. 488, 491, 302 S.E.2d 790, 793 (1983); Moody v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 191 N.C. App. 256, 275-76, 664 S.E.2d 569, 581-82 (2008). If the out-of-state court found jurisdiction and due process to have been "fully and fairly litigated" and they were finally decided, a "North Carolina court extends full faith and credit without further inquiry." The Bergenstock Plaintiffs argued that the California court had not specifically considered the adequacy of the settlement amount paid to persons living in states where LegalZoom's programs were not offered and that they therefore had not been afforded due process. Judge Gale refused to accept that argument, holding that: the record does not allow for this parsing of the settlement consideration. The full settlement consideration, including the consideration provided to the Alternative Payment Plaintiffs, was before Judge Highberger [the California Judge approving the settlement] for his review. The Court cannot infer that Judge Highberger failed to consider the adequacy of representation of or the adequacy of consideration for the Alternative Payment Plaintiffs merely because he did not make express findings in that regard. He made findings that the overall settlement was fair and reasonable and that the Settlement Class had been adequately represented. The Court then must conclude that the issues Plaintiffs now seek to litigate in this Court were fully and fairly litigated and finally decided by Judge Highberger. LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Dudymott, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. Legend Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00035 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Legend Energy Services, LLC is a coiled tubing service specialists with service centers in Victoria, Bowie and Andrews, Texas, Elk City, Oklahoma, Ft. Lupton, Colorado and Dickinson, North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com LINKEDIN CORP: California Court Dismisses "Sweet" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on May 21 dismissed a class action against LinkedIn -- over allegations the networking site furnishes paid subscribers with job candidates' consumer reports -- for failure to prosecute. The case is Tracee Sweet, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04531-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Unearned Probation Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles County charges probation fees for probationers it does not actually supervise, but merely requires to "obey all laws," a class action claims in California Superior Court. LOUISIANA: Accused by Angola Prisoners of Medical Neglect --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that the Angola, Louisiana state prison does not provide ample and timely medical treatment to its inmates, a class action filed on May 20 claims. A group of Angola prisoners sued the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, department secretary James LeBlanc, Angola Warden Burl Cain and Assistant Warden for Health Services Stephanie Lamartiniere in Federal Court. They claim their serious medical needs have gone untreated or mistreated. "The medical care provided at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola falls far beneath constitutional and statutory standards. Countless prisoners have already suffered serious harm due to defendants' grossly deficient policies and practices, including unnecessary pain and suffering, exacerbation of existing conditions, permanent disability, disfigurement, and even death," the complaint states. "Thousands more are placed at daily risk of suffering the same fate should they need medical care." The lawsuit claims that Angola officials routinely delay medical access and treatment, fail to provide medication and follow-up care, and do not have enough qualified medical personnel, resulting in some medical tasks being performed by unqualified people like other prisoners. One plaintiff, quadriplegic Kentrell Parker, developed a blood infection from regularly having to sit in his own feces for hours while waiting for an orderly to change his bedding, according to the lawsuit. Another, 62-year-old Edward Giovanni, claims he has been denied needed hernia surgeries for years due to a hospital shutdown and long waiting list. "Defendants' practices have had devastating consequences for countless prisoners," the complaint states. "Prisoners report horror story after horror story: a man denied medical attention four times during a stroke, leaving him blind and paralyzed; a man denied access to a specialist for four years while his throat cancer advanced; a blind man denied even a cane for 16 years." In 1989, the U.S. Justice Department sued Angola after an investigation into prison conditions, which resulted in a consent decree regulating medical care at Angola, according to the complaint. The prisoners say many of the same problems noted in the investigation still exist. "Defendant Cain was warden of Angola during the latter period that the consent decree was in effect," the complaint states. "Given defendants' longstanding knowledge that its practices are constitutionally deficient, together with the litany of complaints and the devastating, often tragic consequences of their medical neglect, there can be no question that defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the shortcomings of their system of treatment." In a statement provided to Courthouse News May 21 afternoon, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections denied the allegations in the prisoner lawsuit. "Appropriate health care delivery is a critical component for a successful prison operation. The 6,244 offenders assigned to LSP have 24/7 access to emergency healthcare, with a physician on duty who also lives on site and is available around the clock," the department's statement reads. "It should be noted that the groups that have filed the suit have only met with a small fraction of the offender population, yet very broadly claim that all offenders lack appropriate care. That assertion could not be more incorrect." Angola has six full time physicians, a nurse practitioner, 20 registered nurses, 31 licensed practical nurses, 32 EMTs, four pharmacists, and a number of other specialists and technicians, according to the press release. The corrections department also says it has added clinical services to the prison in recent years. The press release states that the department usually does not comment on pending litigation but made an exception because the allegations warrant a response. "The offender population at Angola does present its challenges because of the number of elderly offenders as well as those with chronic diseases, but LSP staff in collaboration with LSU and other private healthcare providers has provided appropriate, quality care despite the challenges and will continue to do so," the corrections department statement reads. Angola is a maximum security prison with over 6,000 prisoners including death row inmates, according to the complaint. The prisoners claim most men housed there serve hard labor sentences, usually tending to crops in agricultural fields. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment, which pertains to cruel and unusual punishment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed class consists of current Angola prisoners. The prisoners seek class certification and the development of a plan to address inadequate medical care. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mercedes Montagnes, Esq. THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 636 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 558-0378 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files New Suit Over Flooring -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Vaughan, writing for The Virginia Gazette, reported that embattled floor covering retailer Lumber Liquidators continues to take hits. With the abrupt resignation of the company's CEO Robert Lynch on and the 100 class-action lawsuits over its Chinese-made composite flooring, the Toano-based company's stock price continued to fall. And a national consumer rights law firm, Hagens Berman, which had already filed a class-action suit relating to the composite flooring, filed another saying that Lumber Liquidators' engineered hardwood floors also contain hazardous levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde, according to the lawsuit. Lumber Liquidators suspended sales of the controversial composite flooring, which had failed California Air Resources Board testing at several labs. Hagens Berman, which has offices in Washington, D.C., Boston, Seattle, Chicago and five other cities across the country, says that's not enough. "Consumers across the nation have been unknowingly filling their homes with a product laced with high levels of cancer-causing chemicals," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "Lumber Liquidators continues to distribute and sell its engineered flooring products to customers who believe they are CARB compliant, when in reality its products are emitting toxic fumes," he said. "We'll stay short for the time being, but may trim our exposure depending on the upcoming price action," Yas Nahili of Orlando, Fla.-based Regal Point Capital Management LLC, said via email. The management firm has very publicly shorted Lumber Liquidators' stock. "We're still confident in our March quote from MarketWatch," Nahili wrote to the Virginia Gazette. "We won't consider trimming the position until we get closer to $20." Lumber Liquidators said Lynch resigned "unexpectedly" and declined to provide more details on the resignation when asked by The Associated Press. The company earlier said that it had suspended the sale of all laminate flooring made in China after disclosing that the Justice Department is seeking criminal charges. At the time, Lumber Liquidators said that it decided to suspend the sales while a board committee completes a review of its sourcing compliance program. Lumber Liquidators has been under investigation since 2013, when a multi-agency raid on its Toano headquarters, raised questions about sourcing of its lumber. Some is alleged to come from protected Siberian woodlands. Since early March, Lumber Liquidators has sent out thousands of free test kits to worried customers. The company claims that more than 97 percent of the kits from customers with laminate flooring from China showed formaldehyde air concentrations that fell within World Health Organization guidelines. The company told The Associated Press it has stopped buying Chinese laminate flooring for now, opting instead for products from parts of Europe and North America. Lynch, who also served as president and a director, had been in the CEO position since January 2012. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. said that its founder, Thomas Sullivan, will take over as acting CEO while the company searches for a replacement. The company also announced that lead independent director John Presley was named nonexecutive chairman. MANNY PACQUIAO: Faces 32 Class Suits Over Fight with Mayweather --------------------------------------------------------------- WWMT.com reported that boxing fans are still fuming over the less- than-entertaining fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. that took place earlier and are taking their displeasure with the match to court. Since the bout between the two, which was dubbed as the "Fight of the century," did not live up to expectations, 32 class action lawsuits have been filed in court. WWMT reported that fans have said not only was the heavily-hyped fight a fraud, but had they known about Pacquiao's injury, they would have never paid to see it. The Associated Press noted that one lawsuit filed by Flights Beer Bar near LAX airport, claims that Pacquiao and his promoters did "nothing but a cash-grab." The establishment paid $2,600 to broadcast the fight. Another suit filed in Texas alleged racketeering and said that the match was "not great, not entertaining, not electrifying. It was boring, slow and lackluster." After the bout that Mayweather won by a unanimous decision, Pacquiao revealed that he had a serious should injury he suffered prior to the fight. The Filipino boxer has since underwent arthroscopic surgery for a torn rotator cuff. Many legal experts do not believe that anything will come from these suits though because Pacquiao did not have a contractual obligation to the fans who purchased the pay-per-view fight. MARYLAND: Sued Over Violation of Sex Offenders' Rights ------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reported that a class action lawsuit has been filed claiming the rights of at least 800 people listed on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry have been violated. The Daily Record of Baltimore reports that the lawsuit claims the state retroactively increased the length of time certain sex offenders had to remain on the registry. The lawsuit was file in Baltimore City Circuit Court and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, rather than damages. The Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibits laws that retroactively criminalize an act or impose a more severe penalty than was set when the act was committed. In 2010, Maryland's sex offender database was amended, changing registration requirements for sex offenders based on what crimes they had committed. The suit claims those changes were applied retroactively to hundreds of people. MASTEC INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MasTec, Inc. ("MasTec" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MTZ) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed under 15-cv-21740, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased MasTec securities between August 12, 2014 and March 17, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. If you are a shareholder who purchased MasTec securities during the Class Period, you have until July 6, 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. MasTec, Inc., an infrastructure construction company, provides engineering, building, installation, maintenance, and upgrade services for energy, utility, and communications infrastructure primarily in the United States. It operates in five segments: Communications, Oil and Gas, Electrical Transmission, Power Generation and Industrial, and Other. The Company builds pipelines for natural gas, crude oil, and refined product transportation; underground and overhead distribution systems comprising trenches, conduits, and cable and power lines that provide wireless and wireline communications; electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution systems; power generation infrastructure, including renewable energy; heavy industrial plants; and compressor and pump stations, and treatment plants. It also installs electrical and other energy distribution and transmission systems, power generation facilities, buried and aerial fiber optic cables, coaxial cables, copper lines, and satellite dishes in various environments. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain cost to complete estimates, currently believed to be in the range of zero to $13 million, which were recognized during the company's third quarter of 2014, should have been recognized during the second quarter of 2014; (2) MasTec's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, MasTec's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC, notifying the SEC that it would delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014. In the filing, the Company stated, in part: "The subject annual report . . . will be filed on or before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date." On March 17, 2015, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release, announcing a further delay in filing its 2014 Form 10-K. As a result of this news, shares of MasTec fell $1.88 or over 9.5% on unusually heavy volume, to close at $17.82 on March 18, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, 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. 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. See www.pomerantzlaw.com MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $731MM Liability in Merchant Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a liability of $731 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a liability of $731 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement. Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, MasterCard had $540 million, in the qualified cash settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants, representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating to these matters. MasterCard has executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount previously recorded was deemed necessary. As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $731 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability. MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of operations, financial position and cash flows. MASTERCARD INC: Parties Appealed Certification Decision ------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action complaint against MasterCard Incorporated have appealed the certification decision, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of- sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds, and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014 certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The parties have appealed the certification decision. Additional proposed class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards. MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Scheduled Trial for January 2016 --------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2013, the European Commission announced that it has opened proceedings to investigate: (1) MasterCard's interregional interchange fees that apply when a card issued outside the EEA is used at a merchant location in the EEA, (2) central acquiring rules, which apply when a merchant uses the services of an acquirer established in another country and (3) other business rules and practices (including the "honor all cards" rule). In the United Kingdom, beginning in May 2012, a number of retailers filed claims against MasterCard seeking damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to MasterCard's cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic interchange fees. More than 20 different retailers have filed claims or notice of claims. An additional 13 potential claimant retailers have agreed to delay filing their claims in exchange for MasterCard agreeing to suspend the running of the time limitations on their damages claims. Although the claimants have not quantified the full extent of their compensatory and punitive damages, their purported damages exceed $2 billion. MasterCard has submitted statements of defense to the retailers' claims disputing liability and damages. A court in one of the actions has scheduled a trial for January 2016. Similarly, in Belgium, a retailer filed claims in December 2012 for unspecified damages with respect to MasterCard's cross-border and domestic interchange fees paid in Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg. MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Filed in ATM Surcharge Complaints -------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints have appealed these actions. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non- bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim, and in December 2013 denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints. The plaintiffs have appealed these actions. MCKEE FOODS: Removed "Martin" Suit to Central Dist. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brian Martin, individually, and on behalf of other members of the genreal public similarly situated v. McKee Foods Corporation, Case No. 30-02015-00780296, was removed from the Superior Court of Orange County, California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00732 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Martin PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Brigham M. Cheney, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 668-6200 E-mail: brighamcheney@paulhastings.com MELROSE CAFE: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Miqueas Leon, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Melrose Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Melrose Restaurant, and Vasilios Koutsougeras, Case No. 1:15-cv- 04770 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 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 restaurant in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq. Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 Facsimile: (312) 322-1106 E-mail: n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net METLIFE INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses MetLife of racial discrimination. MICHIGAN: Nonunion Staff Can't Sue as Class, 6th Cir. Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Nonunionized child care providers in Michigan cannot form a class with union members to sue the state for deducting union dues from state-funded subsidies, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a 6th Circuit ruling entered May 12. Michigan child care providers who do not want to join a union object to having a portion of their state subsidies deducted for union fees. Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) was elected to serve as the union for the state's child care providers. Of 6,396 ballots cast, 5,921 were in favor of the union. Under a 2008 collective bargaining agreement, all home child care providers receiving subsidies from the state were required to either become a union member or have a portion of their subsidy deducted to cover union costs. Carrie Schlaud and five others objected on First Amendment grounds. They are represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. A federal judge denied class certification, and the 6th Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2013. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, and ordered the Cincinnati-based appeals court to revisit the issue in light of the high court's decision in Harris v. Quinn. In Harris, the Supreme Court ruled that Illinois cannot force providers of Medicaid-subsidized rehabilitation services to pay costs for a union they chose not to join, because they were not full-fledged state employees. "The court did not, however, touch upon the issue of class certification," in Harris, the 6th Circuit noted on remand. In an unsigned opinion May 12, the 6th Circuit ruled that Harris did not affect its initial decision, and again denied the child care providers class certification. "Were the merits of the plaintiffs' claims before us, we think that Harris would have much to say. But the merits of their claims are not in front of us," the 12-page opinion states. The plaintiffs' claims against the state became moot once Gov. Rick Snyder ended the program of collective bargaining at issue. And the union wrote checks to the named plaintiffs of approximately $100 each rather than pay to continue the litigation. The proposed class of 40,000 childcare workers would allow each class member to recover money from the union. But the class definition is problematic, the 6th Circuit said, because it includes any home child care provider who had union dues or fees deducted from a state subsidy payment -- whether or not they voted to join the union voluntarily. The last time the court heard this case, "We observed that the named plaintiffs, who objected to the payment of fees under the collective bargaining agreement, had 'divergent interests' from class members who voted in favor of the collective bargaining agreement. We concluded, therefore, that '[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification of plaintiffs' proposed class because plaintiffs fail to meet the prerequisite of adequacy of representation,'" the three-judge panel said. Nothing in the Supreme Court's Harris decision alters this reasoning, the court concluded. The court was absolutely correct," defense attorney John West, with Bredhoff & Haiser in Washington, D.C., told Courthouse News. "The only thing at issue in this case was not the merits, but whether a class should be certified. Harris had nothing whatever to do with that. It was a mystery to us all along why the Supreme Court remanded this case." The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Appellants are represented by: William L. Messenger, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 The Appellees are represented by: John M. West, Esq. BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC 805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005-2207 Telephone: (202) 842-2600 Facsimile: (202) 842-1888 The appellate case is Carrie Schlaud; Edward J. Gross; Nora I. Gross; Peggy Mashke; Diana Orr, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Rick Snyder, et al., Defendants; and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, And Agricultural Implement Workers of America; Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; Child Care Providers Together Michigan, Defendants- Appellees, Case No. 12-1105, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The District Court case is Carrie Schlaud, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-147, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mortgage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that though she conceded that the decision sounds a "death knell" for the case, a federal judge refused to certify a class action alleging that black people bore the brunt Morgan Stanley's mortgage fraud in Detroit. The case is Beverly Adkins, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-07667-VEC-GWG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. MRI INT'L: Accused Ponzi Schemers Appeal Freeze of All Assets ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that two alleged key players in an $800 million Ponzi scheme made headway in trying to show the 9th Circuit that a federal judge went too far in freezing virtually all of their assets. Investors defrauded by MRI International investors brought the challenge at hand in Las Vegas after the Securities and Exchange Commission brought charges in 2013. MRI executives Junzo Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki went to the 9th Circuit after the court presiding over the investors' claims froze all of their assets except for those needed to pay their legal fees and living costs. The Suzukis and others have meanwhile been hit with summary judgment in the SEC case. U.S. District Judge James Mahan ordered the defendants to disgorge $442 million, and he hit them with another $102 million in interest and $20 million each in civil penalties. The defendants' six commercial properties were placed in receivership as well. Nick Morgan, an attorney for the Suzukis with Zaccaro and Morgan in Los Angeles, told a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on May 11 that the "asset freeze is overbroad." "There are limits to a district court's ability to freeze assets," Morgan argued. With an asset freeze limited to targeting only a defendant's "equitable interests," Morgan said that means the Suzuki's frozen assets must be "traceable to the commissions that they received from MRI." The case currently has 25 plaintiffs who lost a combined $3 million in the Ponzi scheme, Morgan said, adding that a pending class certification has not been approved. What these investors have failed so far to show, however, is "how much of the $3 million was in the form of commissions to the Suzukis" and "whether any of the $3 million went to the Suzukis," Morgan claimed. On about $3 million lost by 25 current plaintiffs, the commissions amounted only to between $430,000 and $450,000, the attorney added. Morgan also argued the asset freeze incorrectly applies to properties and other assets the Suzukis owned long before the MRI scheme occurred, including a property bought in 1987. He said the asset freeze can apply only to assets acquired after the Suzukis had "actual or constructive notice of the underlying fraud at MRI." With the trial court having found that the Suzukis had "actual notice" of the fraudulent scheme as of April 2012, only assets acquired after that time can be subjected to an asset freeze, the attorney added. The investors' attorney Robert Cohen told the court that the evidence of fraud and the dissipation of funds support the asset freeze. "Within two weeks of the Japanese government's finding of the underlying fraud of the existence of this Ponzi scheme, the Suzukis were undertaking rapid efforts to dissipate their assets and protect them from the judgment that is likely to be in this case," Cohen argued. He said the Suzukis are "the main guys" at MRI and made false representations "constantly over a period of many, many years." "They are MRI "and "made literally all of the representations to the Japanese victims," Cohen argued. "These Suzukis are the ones who spoke to them [and] who took them to Las Vegas countless times touting the virtues of the MRI investment." Cohen said the SEC has sound recordings of the Suzukis at meetings and discussed ways to lie to the Japanese government while trying to hide the fact that MRI was buying affiliate companies after lying about only investing in medical account receivables. When asked if the size of the asset freeze is appropriate to create a constructive trust, Cohen said there are potentially more than 8,000 members of a yet-to-be-certified class action who lost "hundreds of millions of dollars." Cohen scoffed at the notion that the asset freeze went too far into the past, thus targeting assets obtained before the scheme was perpetrated. "It's hardly a stretch to assume that they have been paying mortgages and maintaining those houses with money that was taken from these commissions," he said. "Everything they have is traceable, in that sense, to this money." Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said he and the rest of the panel, Judges Fortunado Benevides and John Owens, might leave the current injunction and asset freeze in place until the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas can hold a discovery hearing. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Likeness Suit Settlement Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court was correct in approving a class action settlement between the NFL and former players over use of players' likenesses, reports Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service, citing an 8th Circuit panel ruling. In 2009, former players filed a class action objecting to the NFL's use of their likenesses without compensation. The complaint claimed NFL Films videos are promotional film productions that are completely independent of the play and the production of games themselves. Instead, the class claimed the NFL used their likenesses and identity in the videos to improve profits and its brand. The settlement, involving 25,000 former players and the NFL, establishes a licensing agency to assist former NFL players in marketing their publicity rights with the support of the NFL. It also includes a $42 million payout by the NFL to its Common Good Entity, which provides charitable contributions for the benefit of former players for health-related, housing and career-transition issues. Six former players challenged the approval of the settlement, claiming a federal judge abused his discretion because the settlement does not provide a direct financial payment to each class member and is not fair, reasonable and adequate. The players claimed the settlement is simply a way of the NFL giving away their proceeds to a third-party charity. But a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit was not swayed. "Here, the financial payment to the third-party organization is not the only, or perhaps even the primary, benefit of the settlement agreement," Circuit Judge Kermit Bye wrote for the panel. "All class members receive a direct benefit from the settlement: the opportunity to license their publicity rights through the established licensing agency, as well as the payments by the NFL to the licensing agency. If the players' publicity rights are as valuable as appellants claim, the players should be able to realize the value of their publicity rights through the licensing agency." The appeals court used the traditional four-point analysis in rejecting the players' arguments that the settlement was not fair, reasonable or adequate. According to that analysis the panel found that the NFL was in good enough financial condition to pay its obligation of the settlement; the complexity and cost of further litigation would be too much of a burden; less than 10 percent of the class opted out of the settlement minimizing the amount of opposition; and the value of the settlement outweighed the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Circuit Judges Lavenski Smith and Jane Kelly concurred. The cases are: (1) James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Dante Anthony Pastorini, Plaintiffs-Appellants; Fred Barnett, Tracy Simien, Darrell Alexander Thompson, James Nathaniel Brown, Mark Gregory Clayton, Irvin Acie Cross, Brian Duncan, Billy Joe Dupree, Michael James Haynes, Paul James Krause, Reginald McKenzie, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie Larue Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees; John Frederick Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Edward Alvin White, Lemuel Joseph Barney, Bruce Allan Laird, Preston Pearson, Jim Ray Smith, Plaintiffs v. National Football League, Defendant- Appellee, Case No. 13-3581, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; (2) Marcus Dell Gastineau, Abdul Salaam, Plaintiffs- Appellants; Fred Barnett, Tracy Simien, Darrell Alexander Thompson, James Nathaniel Brown, Mark Gregory Clayton, Irvin Acie Cross, Brian Duncan, Billy Joe Dupree, Michael James Haynes, Paul James Krause, Reginald McKenzie, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie Larue Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellees; John Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini, Edward Alvin White, Lemuel Joseph Barney, Bruce Allan Laird, Preston Pearson, Jim Ray Smith, Plaintiffs v. National Football League, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-3582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (3) Jed Weaver, Plaintiff-Appellant; Fred Barnett, Tracy Simien, Darrell Alexander Thompson, James Nathaniel Brown, Mark Gregory Clayton, Irvin Acie Cross, Brian Duncan, Billy Joe Dupree, Michael James Haynes, Paul James Krause, Reginald McKenzie, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie Larue Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees; John Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini, Edward Alvin White, Lemuel Joseph Barney, Bruce Allan Laird, Preston Pearson, Jim Ray Smith, Plaintiffs v. National Football League, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-3666, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. NATIONAL HOCKEY: Classes Certified in Sports Cable Package Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Whether they watched online or on their big screen, sports fans claiming that the packages they bought violate antitrust law should proceed as class actions, reports Nick Rummell at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on May 14. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin issued decision for two class actions involving different sports, but the same idea. Thomas Laumann is the lead plaintiff in the class action against the National Hockey League, while Marc Lerner is the lead plaintiff taking on Major League Baseball. Both cases allege that the leagues and various regional sports networks conspired with distributors like DirecTV and Comcast to limit options and increase prices for fans who must buy a special cable or Internet package to see games outside of their home television territories. Under the current system, a Yankees fan in Brooklyn would have to purchase the YES Network to watch local games, whereas a Yankees fan in Iowa would have to purchase an out-of-market package that would include all baseball games. Most out-of-market games are available only via national broadcasts, or through the out-of-market packages sold through Comcast and DirectTV. The leagues meanwhile contend that it is the profits from these agreements that allow them and networks to broadcast their games in the first place. Contending that some of the plaintiffs could be worse off without the exclusivity agreements, the leagues said that a hypothetical Yankees fan in Iowa would no longer have any option to purchase an out-of-market package to watch the Yankees, or the package would cost more. The leagues wanted Scheindlin to deny class certification on the basis of this predicament, contending that it proves that the class members are not similarly situated. Scheindlin found May 14, however, that this "winners and losers" argument is too broadly worded. "There is no question that here, a common injury exists in the form of diminished consumer choice," the 66-page opinion states. "It is possible . . . that many fans would have preferred that the instant lawsuit not be brought. But the fundamental point remains. The restraints are either illegal or they are not." Scheindlin likewise concluded that the winners and losers argument "threatens the integrity of the antitrust laws." "If the fact that illegal restraints operate to the economic advantage of certain class members were enough to defeat certification, the efficacy of class-wide antitrust suits -- and the deterrence function they serve -- would wither," she wrote. The leagues also failed to sway Scheindlin with claims that many sports fans no longer subscribed to out-of-market packages, and therefore shouldn't be considered "consumers in the relevant market" for the purpose of a class-action lawsuit. "Short of death, cognitive illness, or a complete loss of interest in baseball and hockey, previous subscribers" should be added to the class, the ruling states. In a separate opinion May 14 that dealt some bad news to the plaintiffs, Scheindlin threw out their proposed damages model. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Diver, Esq. Howard I. Langer, Esq. Peter E. Leckman, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C. Three Logan Square, Suite 4130 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5663 E-mail: ndiver@langergrogan.com hlanger@langergrogan.com pleckman@langergrogan.com - and - Kevin M. Costello, Esq. Gary E. Klein, Esq. KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP 85 Merrimac St., 4th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 357-5034 E-mail: costello@kkcllp.com klein@kkcllp.com - and - Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. John A. Ioannou, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com jioannou@motleyrice.com - and - Marc I. Gross, Esq. Adam G. Kurtz, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com agkurtz@pomlaw.com - and - Robert LaRocca, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com - and - J. Douglas Richards, Esq. Jeffrey Dubner, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com jdubner@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI & ZACK, LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: MBoni@bonizack.com JSnyder@bonizack.com Defendants Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB AdvancedMedia, Inc., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, The Baseball Club of Seattle, L.L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club,Ltd., The Phillies, Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and San Francisco BaseballAssociates, L.P. are represented by: Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. Samantha P. Bateman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 E-mail: bwilkinson@paulweiss.com sbateman@paulweiss.com - and - Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq. Helene Debra Jaffe, Esq. Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. Colin Kass, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3465 E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com ajaffe@proskauer.com jscullion@proskauer.com ckass@proskauer.com - and - Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq. Senior Vice President and General Counsel OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL 245 Park Avenue New York, NY 10167 Telephone: (212) 931-7800 Facsimile: (212) 949-5653 E-mail: Tom.Ostertag@mlb.com Defendants National Hockey League, NHL Enterprises, L.P., NHLInteractive Cyberenterprises, LLC, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc.,Comcast-Spectator, L.P., Hockey Western New York LLC, Lemieux Group,L.P., Lincoln Hockey LLC, New Jersey Devils LLC, New York IslandersHockey Club, L.P., and San Jose Sharks, LLC are represented by: Shepard Goldfein, Esq. James A. Keyte, Esq. Paul M. Eckles, Esq. Matthew M. Martino, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 E-mail: shepard.goldfein@skadden.com james.keyte@skadden.com paul.eckles@skadden.com matthew.martino@skadden.com Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, L.P., Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic L.P., Comcast SportsNet California, LLC, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC are represented by: Arthur J. Burke, Esq. James W. Haldin, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com james.haldin@davispolk.com Defendants DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC a/k/a Root Sports Pittsburgh, DIRECTV Sports Net Rocky Mountain, LLC a/ka/a Root Sports Rocky Mountain, and DIRECTV Sports Net Northwest, LLC a/ka/a Root SportsNorthwest are represented by: Louis A. Karasik, Esq. Andrew E. Paris, Esq. Stephanie A. Jones, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 E-mail: lou.karasik@alston.com drew.paris@alston.com alison.jones@alston.com Defendant New York Yankees Partnership is represented by: Jonathan Schiller, Esq. Alan Vickery, Esq. Christopher Duffy, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 849-2300 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com avickery@bsfllp.com cduffy@bsfllp.com Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and New York Rangers Hockey Club are represented by: Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq. Deborah Brown, Esq. Richard I. Werder, Jr., Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com deborahbrown@quinnemanuel.com rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com Defendant Yankees Entertainment Sports Network, LLC is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Kenneth Charles Smurzynski, Esq. James Harris Weingarten, Esq. William Jefferson Vigen, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com ksmurzynski@wc.com jweingarten@wc.com wvigen@wc.com The cases are (1) Thomas Laumann, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al., Case No. 12-cv-1817 (SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and (2) Marc Lerner, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 12-cv-3704 (SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NEUSTAR INC: Counsel for IPRS Filed Notice of Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Neustar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that counsel for the Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, has filed a notice of appeal in a class action lawsuit. On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria Division, against the Company and certain of its senior executive officers. The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief. On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint. On December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a reply brief to the IPRS opposition. The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice. On February 25, 2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice of appeal. At this stage, the Company is unable to quantify the impact of these claims on its future consolidated financial position or results of operations. NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Over Rape & Abuse at Rikers Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- New York City has allowed the Rikers Island jail to become one of the nation's worst settings for horrific and "endemic" rape and abuse behind bars for women awaiting trial, a federal class-action lawsuit alleges, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service. Months after its juvenile prison faced federal prosecution for its "Lord of the Flies" setting, Rikers Island's Rose M. Singer Center (RMSC) might face the same reputation based on the allegations of an alarming complaint. Two Jane Doe women incarcerated there allege that corrections officer Benny Santiago and "at least seven" unnamed guards inflicted horrific abuse on numerous inmates. In 39 pages, the lawsuit depicts an environment where the officers repeatedly punish inmates with anal rape, masturbate in the open areas of dormitories, and continue to collect a paycheck even after their sexual assaults lead to pregnancy. Their Legal Aid Society attorney Seymour James said in a statement that New York's Department of Corrections has seen "record proportions" sexual violence that is "endemic" at this women's jail. "According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, RMSC is one of the 12 worst jails in the country regarding rates of staff sexual misconduct," James wrote. "Nationwide, 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported sexual victimization, but at RMSC the rate was 8.6 percent, and sexual victimization rates were higher at RMSC than at the other Rikers jails in the survey. According to the DOJ survey, approximately 5.9 percent of RMSC inmates reported sexual abuse by staff." Sexually assaulting his first accuser "as many as four times a week," Santiago punished her with anal rape and threats to her family if she resisted, according to the complaint. "Santiago knew where Jane Doe 1's mother lived, and would park his car outside her home, observe Jane Doe 1's family, and later report his observations to Jane Doe 1 -- reminding her to 'make the right decision,' and implicitly threatening her family," the complaint states. "Santiago also kept Jane Doe 1 from resisting or reporting his sexual abuse by threatening that after she was released, she would live with him, keep his house clean and 'never go anywhere.'" She claims the abuse persisted during various stints of incarceration between 2009 and 2011. Late in 2012, the second accuser entered the same prison and she says Santiago first started sexually abusing her in February 2013. If she reported him, Santiago allegedly warned: "I can get you set up. I can get you fucked up." Breaking down into tears, the second accuser told a mental health counselor but the inspector-general investigation that followed yielded no results other than the guards calling her a "snitch," according to the complaint. She claims that Santiago left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and trichomoniasis, a sexually transmitted disease. Both women claim that Santiago refused to wear a condom. Legal Aid lawyers assert that Santiago was still a corrections officer there at the time the complaint was filed on May 18. A Department of Corrections official said in an e-mail on May 20 that the "officer in question is currently on modified duty." "Officers on modified duty do not interact with jail inmates," the official said. The lawsuit disguises the names of "at least seven" other officers accused of misconduct. Of this group, one of them impregnated an inmate, and two of them "may have impregnated" another, according to the complaint. "Corrections Officer 3" is described as having raped "at least one woman" with impunity, but received a three-year sentence for smuggling marijuana into the prison. The charge and sentence match the description of a recent high-profile case in New York. A Department of Corrections representative declined to comment on the specific allegations. "Speaking generally, DOC has a zero-tolerance policy with regard to sexual abuse and assault, and there is no place at DOC for the mistreatment of any inmate," the representative said. On a literal level, there a several places in the prison for inmate mistreatment, the complaint alleges. Legal Aid lawyers say that much of the abuse alleged occurred in areas without video surveillance. In an unrelated case, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara also charged that the city's negligence and inoperative cameras enabled Rikers abuse at juvenile facilities, but he had no comment on the Legal Aid case. City spokesman Nicholas Paolucci commented that "the lawsuit will be reviewed once we are served." NUCOR CORP: 4th Cir. Upheld Class Cert. for Black Steelworkers -------------------------------------------------------------- The 4th Circuit upheld class certification for black steelworkers who claim they were subjected to extreme and unrelenting racial discrimination while working for the Nucor Corporation in South Carolina, reports Charly Himmel at Courthouse News Service. The ruling handed down on May 11 is the second time the 4th Circuit has found the district court erred in refusing to certify the workers' class, and U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory said the problem is the court is misapplying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2011 case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. In Wal-Mart, a sharply divided high court reversed a lower court's decision to certify a class off that included 1.6 million woman who alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies at the retail giant's stores. Simply put, a majority of the Justices ruled the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said lead plaintiff Betty Dukes and the women who hoped to join her lawsuit, could not show there was a "common answer to the crucial question, why was I disfavored?" Critics of the ruling said it would limit the ability of other plaintiffs to band together in large class actions. Judge Gregory didn't quite far in his ruling in favor of the black steelworkers, but he did acknowledge that Wal-Mart had reshaped the "class action landscape." Nevertheless, he said, in this case the there is more than enough in the steelworkers' claims to warrant class certification. Gregory noted that "statistics indicate that promotions at Nucor depended in part on whether an individual was black or white . . . [that] substantial anecdotal evidence suggests discrimination in specific promotions decisions in multiple plant departments . . . and [that] there is also significant evidence that those promotions decisions were made in the context of a racially hostile work environment." "Against that backdrop," the judge wrote, "the district court fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-Mart and its application to the workers' promotions class" The 4th Circuit's opinion did not directly address a separate hostile work environment claim filed by the workers. The district court refused to decertify that claim, and the 4th Circuit previously denied as untimely Nucor's petition for interlocutory review. But that element of the workers' dispute with their employer clearly weighed on Gregory, who called the claims "Disquieting in their volume, specificity, and consistency." "Supervisors allegedly routinely referred to black workers as 'nigger' and 'DAN (dumb ass nigger),' with one supervisor reportedly stating 'niggers aren't smart enough' to break production records, while others tolerate the routine use of epithets like 'bologna lips,' 'yard ape,' and 'porch monkey,'" Gregory wrote. "these epithets and others were broadcast over the plant-wide radio system -- comprising a network of walkie-talkies used to communicate -- along with monkey noises and the songs 'Dixie' and 'High Cotton," he continued. "the workers' declarations and depositions further suggest that . . . supervisors and the plant's general manager consistently ignored racial harassment carried out by white workers, including the circulation of racist emails, the prominent display of a hangman's noose, the commonplace showing of the Confederate flag, and an episode when a white employee draped a white sheet over his head with eyes cut out in the form of a KKK hood." The seven lead plaintiffs also claim that between 1999 and 2003, black workers were routinely denied promotion and of 611 total employees, Nucor employed only one black supervisor. Gregory said because the steel plant destroyed promotion bids prior to 2001, expert witnesses for the plaintiffs relied on "change-of-status" paperwork for calculating statistical evidence. Gregory was joined in his opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano. But U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee dissented, calling the workers' claims anecdotal and statistical unreliable. "The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification in a case involving the same claims, the same experts, and the same defendant," Agee wrote. "We should hardly take this troubled road in the name of "simple justice,"" he continued. The Appellants are represented by: Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq. Ann K. Wiggins, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com awiggins@wigginschilds.com - and - Armand Derfner, Esq. D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., Esq. DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN 575 King Street, Suite B Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 723-9804 E-mail: aderfner@dawlegal.com pwilborn@dawlegal.com The Appellees are represented by: Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Esq. Dirk C. Phillips, Esq. Sarah M. Harris, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com Dirk.Phillips@aporter.com Sarah.Harris@aporter.com - and - Cary A. Farris, Esq. John K. Linker, Esq. J. Shannon Gatlin, Esq. ALANIZ SCHRAEDER LINKER FARRIS MAYES, LLP 2500 Citywest Blvd., Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (281) 833-2200 Facsimile: (281) 833-2240 E-mail: cfarris@alaniz-schraeder.com jlinker@alaniz-schraeder.com sgatlin@alaniz-schraeder.com - and - J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq. Robert L. Hodges, Esq. Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Telephone: (804) 775-1131 Facsimile: (804) 698-2201 E-mail: twalker@mcguirewoods.com rhodges@mcguirewoods.com mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com The appellate case is Quinton Brown; Jason Guy; Alvin Simmons; Sheldon Singletary; Gerald White; Ramon Roane; Jacob Ravenell, individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Nucor Corporation; Nucor Steel-Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-1779, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The District Court case is Quinton Brown, et al. v. Nucor Corporation and Nucor Steel- Berkeley, Case No. 2:04-cv-22005-CWH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies "Shamblin" Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Si, writing for The National News Review, reported that the Middle District of Florida recently denied class certification because the plaintiff failed to prove that consent (or more to the point, an alleged lack of consent) could be established on a classwide basis. In doing so, it confirmed that class action plaintiffs have the burden of proving that issues are susceptible to classwide proof even though a defendant may bear the burden of proving or disproving some of those issues at trial. Shamblin v. Obama for Am., No. 13-2428, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2015). Lori Shamblin alleged that Obama for America, DNC Services Corporation and New Partners Consulting, Inc. made "auto-dialed and prerecorded calls urging the recipients to vote for Barack Obama. . . " Shamblin alleged that "two unsolicited auto-dialed calls to her cellular telephone" violated the TCPA because she did not give the Defendants her cell phone number, let alone "her express consent to call her cell phone." She filed suit on behalf of not only herself but also a putative class consisting of "[a]ll persons in Florida who received one or more non-emergency telephone calls from Defendants in September through November 2012 in support of President Obama's re-election to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic-telephone-dialing system of an artificial or pre-recorded voice, and for whom Defendants' records do not show prior express consent for those calls." The Middle District of Florida recently denied certification of that class. It began by noting that "[t]he burden of proof to establish the propriety of class certification rests with the advocate of the class, and failure to establish any one of the four Rule 23(a) factors and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b) precludes class certification." (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-14 (1997)). It then found that Shamblin had not satisfied her burden for three reasons. First, the Court determined that "there can never be common answers to the questions of whether (1) the telephone number dialed was assigned to a cellular telephone at the time of the call and (2) whether the subscriber consented to be called." Id. at *17. Judge Covington held that simply "list[ing] some common questions does not satisfy commonality" because there was an absence of "classwide proof on these outcome-determinative issues," meaning that "individualized proof will be required for each and every plaintiff, which defeats the purpose of class certification." (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2556 (2011)). Shamblin had tried to put the rabbit in the hat by defining a class that included called parties "for whom Defendants' record do not show prior express consent," the implication being that the burden of proof at the class certification stage should shift to the Defendant. See Shamblin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *11. The Court rejected her request to infer a lack of consent from a lack of documentary evidence of consent, reasoning that she was "not entitled to a presumption that all class members failed to consent" and that "Defendants have a constitutional right to a jury determination as to whether any person consented to receiving calls to their cellular telephone." Shamblin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *18 (citing Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 648, 652 (M.D. Fla. 2001)). Second, the Court held that even if there were a common answer to a crucial question, individualized inquiries would still predominate. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied when "'the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members [predominance], and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the whole controversy [superiority].'" Id. at *24. Defendants argued that prior express consent was obtained in a multitude of ways (e.g., signups, campaign contribution, petitions) and that "short of calling each class member to testify on the issue on consent, there is no way to determine whether the TCPA was in fact violated with each call." Id.at *26-27. The Court agreed and held that, because the "TCPA 'allows consent to be given orally, in writing, electronically, or by any other means, as long as the consent is expressly given to the particular entity making the call,'. . . . [i]ndividualized inquiries into consent (including where, how, and when) will predominate." Id. at *28-29 (quoting Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2014)). In support of its decision, the Court cited several TCPA decisions denying certification due to the existence of individualized inquiries into consent. Id. at *29-31. After determining that Shamblin had not established predominance, the Court also found that "class wide resolution of the dispute [was] not superior to other methods of adjudication." Shamblin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *31. Defendants asserted that a class action was not the superior method of adjudication because individual issues predominated, alternative methods to adjudicate individual TCPA claims were both available and commonly used, and the potential for substantial aggregated damages for statutory damages that are grossly disproportionate to actual damages raised due process issues. The Court examined the superiority factors enumerated in 23(b)(3), agreed that a class action was not the superior method to adjudicate Shamblin's claims, and placed particular emphasis on the predominance of individualized issues. Id. at *31-32 ("'the predominance analysis . . . has a tremendous impact on the superiority analysis . . . for the simple reason that, the more common issues predominate over individual uses, the more desirable a class action lawsuit will be . . . '"). Third, the Court concluded that Shamblin's attempt to certify a "hybrid class for injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and monetary damages under Rule 23(b)(3)" was unsustainable because Shamblin failed to "set forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the monetary relief requested [did] not predominate over the injunctive and declaratory relief requested." Id. at *24-25. Defendants argued that injunctive and declaratory relief under 23(b)(2) were categorically unavailable and the "predominant relief requested [was] monetary." Id.at *23. Judge Covington agreed that Shamblin could not seek injunctive relief against the campaign organization since the President is constitutionally barred from running for a third consecutive term, "certification under 23(b)(2) would be improper because Obama for America cannot be enjoined from an activity that will not take place in the future." Id. at *23. Judge Covington's Opinion confirms that plaintiffs have the burden of proving that critical questions can be proven on a classwide basis, even if defendants happen to bear the ultimate burden of proof on some of those issues, and that a class action is not the appropriate vehicle to navigate through a TCPA dispute when individual determinations on consent exist. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Hua, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling OmniVision too cheaply through an unfair process to China-based Hua Capital Management, for $1.9 billion or $29.75 per share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. ORANGE COUNTY, CA: To Refund Fines Over Red-light Tickets --------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Hudak, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that Orange County will refund $41,080 in red-light tickets for infractions at an intersection where the yellow caution light took less time to change than allowed by the state. The light should have taken 0.3 second longer. For Dennis Gallo, an Apopka musician, it means he'll get back $158 he shelled out two years ago to pay a ticket he didn't think he deserved. The guitar player/keyboardist was coming home from a gig at Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville at Universal Orlando when the signal at Hiawassee and Clarcona-Ocoee roads changed quickly from yellow to red -- too quickly in his opinion. "I remember thinking, 'Hey! That was fast,'" he said. "That's not fair." As it turned out, it wasn't. The shortened light was first discovered by David Shaw, a red-light-camera critic who has argued that lengthening caution lights and extending all-red times would improve safety at intersections more than cameras. His research prompted Orange County traffic engineers to double-check signal times. From Aug. 1, 2012, until May 6, 2013, when the signal timing was adjusted, Orange County issued 570 red-light tickets to motorists who had entered the intersection of northbound Hiawassee Road and Clarcona-Ocoee Road after the light turned red, triggering a camera that snapped pictures of the offending vehicle's license tag. The traffic-engineering division, which oversees the red-light safety program, concluded that 260 of those tickets would not have been issued if the yellow were properly set at 4.3 seconds, the state standard. Among those wrongly ticketed were two dozen businesses, including a cab company and a towing company. Launched in February 2011, Orange County's red-light-camera program has 50 cameras installed at 35 intersections across the county. It relies on devices rented from Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions. The county credits the cameras with improving safety, citing a decrease in the number of crashes. A red-light- camera ticket costs $158. The state keeps $83, with the remainder returned to the county. The county pays ATS $3,837.50 per camera per month. The county had collected $8.8 million from red-light runners through December 2014. Red-light cameras have been the target of frequent criticism and efforts to overturn them on the local and state level. Critics say they're unfair, frequently inaccurate and designed to generate revenue, not improve highway safety. Orange County commissioners approved the refunds at their meeting. The county will mail a "request for refund" form to motorists who were improperly ticketed at the Hiawassee and Clarcona-Ocoee intersection, said Krista Barber, project manager for the county's Red Light Running program. Once the document is returned and verified, the county will process the ticket refund. ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over FICA Refunds ---------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that Orlando Health was targeted in a federal lawsuit alleging the hospital system failed to pursue more than $5 million in refunds for medical residents. According to the lawsuit, the system failed to seek refunds of Social Security and Medicare contributions that were withheld from medical residents' pay. The lawsuit is a proposed class action filed in the name of former medical resident Bryan Reuss, who still works in the Orlando area as an orthopedic physician. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of 40 to 100 former medical residents. Attorneys filing the suit are Jordan M. Lewis, of Fort Lauderdale-based Kelley Uustal, and T. Scott Tufts of Maitland. Orlando Health declined to respond to the allegations or a reporter's questions about the refunds. "I'm not sure that our legal office has seen or been served with this lawsuit yet, so we cannot respond," said spokesman Geo Morales, in an email. The lawsuit is one of several filed in the U.S. that stem from a ten-year battle between hospitals and the IRS over collection of Social Security and Medicare contributions (FICA) from medical residents. The IRS ruled that medical residents must pay the taxes, even though they are technically students in medical programs. But several court battles also found that the IRS had to refund contested revenues that were collected from 1995 to 2005. A formal process of claiming the refunds was outlined for the hospitals. According to the Reuss lawsuit, Orlando Health applied for refunds for just one year, 2000. The suit accuses the hospital system of failing to act and failing to advise medical residents of the refund opportunities. "Orlando Health should reimburse, cover, or otherwise disgorge sums sufficient to cover the lost tax refunds of plaintiffs and the class," the lawsuit states. According to the suit, Orlando Health retained accounting firm Ernst & Young to file claims for itself and its medical residents for the 2000 tax year only, and "took no action to file protective claims for 1995-99 and 2001-05." Now, the suit claims, it's too late to pursue the refunds from the IRS because of statute limitations. Reuss, who was in residence at Orlando Health from 2000 to 2005, is seeking the remaining four years of refunds from the health system. A similar lawsuit was filed in January against Dignity Health and St. Joseph's Hospital system in Phoenix, where the demand was also listed at around $5 million, according to Legal News Online. PACIFIC WEST: Accused of Charging Monthly Fees Before Activation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that Pacific West Bank deceptively charges monthly fees for prepaid reloadable debit cards before customers activate them, in Superior Court. PENNYSAVER USA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Dinah Griffin, Giancarlo Bresani, Kara Mathews, Ester Mendoza Jr., and Sharon Ciorlieri, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. PennySaver USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00854 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide any written notice of the impending facility closure and terminations and failure to pay employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge. Pennysaver USA ,LLC operates PennySaver publication, providing advertising services to advertisers and consumers throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com PETROCHINA CO: Bid for Submission of Supplemental Pleadings Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- PetroChina Company Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court dismissed the request of a class action plaintiff for submission of supplemental pleadings. On September 3 and 6, 2013, two respective class action complaints were filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company and certain former and current directors and senior management of the Company for alleged violations of the securities laws of the United States. These complaints were filed in light of PRC authorities' investigation into certain former directors and senior management of the Company. The Company (through the designated legal documents delivery agent of the Company in the United States) has been served with notices of the complaints, with no details on the amounts claimed. The Company made announcements on September 6, 2013 and November 26, 2013, respectively, in relation to the actions. On April 4, 2014, the Court entered an order to consolidate the related actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff submitted a revised complaint whereby the Company's current directors and senior management were removed from the complaint and the individual defendants only include the former directors and senior management of the Company. The relevant charges set out in the complaint were basically the same as those in the previous complaint. On August 5, 2014, in view of the revised complaint, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On November 24, 2014, upon approval by the court, the U.S. plaintiff further submitted a revised joinder complaint. In view of the complaint, the Company filed another motion to dismiss on February 13, 2015. On April 10, 2015, the Court held a pre-motion conference to discuss the plaintiff's request for submission of supplemental pleadings, and the Court dismissed the plaintiff's request. The normal course of business of the Company has not been affected by these complaints. The Company will proactively and vigorously contest the complaint with its best efforts to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the Company. PHILADELPHIA: DA Says Forfeiture Protocols Necessary ---------------------------------------------------- Larry Miller, writing for The Philadelphia Times, reported that District Attorney Seth Williams said that his office continues to strengthen civil forfeiture protocols to protect the rights of innocent citizens but considers it a valuable tool against drug dealers who sell narcotics out of their homes. Williams' comment was in response to a ruling by a federal judge to deny a motion by the city and the Philadelphia District Attorney to dismiss a class action lawsuit by the Institute for Justice challenging the city's civil forfeiture laws. "This lawsuit is still in the preliminary stages as a judge is required to treat the claims of the plaintiffs as true until factual discovery proves otherwise," Williams said. "We approach civil forfeiture as a tool to protect innocent residents from drug dealers who use their homes to sell drugs. The district attorney continues to work to strengthen the civil forfeiture protocols while also continuing to keep neighborhoods safe." The ruling is the first in a class action filed in August 2014 by property owners and the Institute for Justice. According to Darpana Sheth, the Institute for Justice's lead attorney on the case, the city's civil forfeiture laws are far too aggressive. The Institute for Justice is representing plaintiffs Christos Sourovelis, Doila Welch, Norys Hernandez and Nassir Geiger. The defendants are the city of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police Department, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and District Attorney Seth Williams. "The city tried to seize my home even though I did not do anything wrong," said Christos Sourovelis, the lead plaintiff in the case. "I am very happy the case will go on, because it means the city is going to have to be accountable for the nightmare it put my family and others through." Sheth said law enforcement agencies have been seizing cash, cars and even homes without charging anyone with any crime. In order to retrieve seized properties, owners must go through numerous legal proceedings without being able to see a judge. The city seizes and forfeits almost $6 million each year from residents. "This ruling requires Philadelphia and its chief law enforcement officers to defend how they have systematically trampled on the rights of our clients and the rights of thousands of other property owners through its aggressive use of forfeiture," Sheth said. According to Sheth, the judge rejected the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, because it recently changed the practice of forcibly evicting people from their homes without providing any notice or a hearing. The judge noted that any policy change could be just as easily revoked. In a small number of cases, the owner of the seized property is unwilling or unable to control illegal activity so that it ceases, according to the DA's office. In those cases the district attorney pursues forfeiture in order to do what the owner will not or cannot do. Authorities agreed to dismiss the civil-forfeiture case against Sourovelis and Welch -- two local families who stood to lose their homes. In response they filed the federal class-action lawsuit challenging the civil forfeiture system. Although Christos and Doila's individual, state-level civil-forfeiture proceedings were dismissed, they said they will continue their class-action legal complaint Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock said the system must be dismantled. "Civil forfeiture laws are draconian and outrageous in many places in the country, but Philadelphia is in a league of its own in how it treats property owners," said attorney Scott Bullock, who leads the Institute's forfeiture initiative. "Philadelphia has seized over $64 million from its residents in an 11-year period. The city's forfeiture machine must be dismantled." PHILLIP MORRIS: Ill. High Court Hears Arguments on $10BB Verdict ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that Illinois Supreme Court has heard oral arguments about whether to let a $10 billion class- action verdict against a major cigarette maker stand. Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and another Phillip Morris lawyer asked the court to strike that verdict. The verdict that Phillip Morris fraudulently marketed "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes as safer than others came in 2003. The state's high court subsequently threw it out. But an appellate court reinstated the 12-year-old verdict. The core dispute is whether regulators allowed cigarette makers to label cigarettes "light" and "low-tar." Phillip Morris attorneys argued they were given permission to label cigarettes that way. But a plaintiff attorney said regulators didn't OK that labeling practice and so Phillip Morris engaged in a "massive fraud" by do so. PRICE CHOPPER: Team Leaders to Get Invite to Join OT Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim O'Brien, writing for TimesUnion.com, reported that some team leaders at every Price Chopper store will soon get a notice inviting them to join a class-action lawsuit against the supermarket chain over paying overtime. Shelly J. Davine filed suit against the Schenectady-based chain in federal court in Massachusetts, saying she had been falsely classified in order to avoid paying her overtime. The company has denied the accusation. Davine was a team leader and department manager at three different Price Chopper stores in North Adams, Lenox and Lee, Mass., from 1983 to June 2014. While the case was filed in Massachusetts, Davine filed it on behalf of herself and others in the class she seeks to represent. Rachel Bien, the attorney representing Davine, said she asked U.S. District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni for what's called "conditional certification of the collective." What that means is that team leaders at all of Price Chopper's 135 supermarkets who are similarly classified can be identified and then notified of the lawsuit in case they wish to join it. "The judge granted our motion and has authorized a notice to be sent to all team leaders at Price Chopper in the last three years," Bien said. Price Chopper spokeswoman Mona Golub said the case does not apply to all team leaders. There are some who are hourly employees and the legal case does not apply to workers in its pharmacies, she said. Otherwise, she declined to say much about the pending case. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Not Liable for Collapse of MF Global ------------------------------------------------------------ Citing a legal doctrine that forbids one corporate wrongdoer from suing another for the same misconduct, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal May 22 of attempts to hold PricewaterhouseCoopers liable for the collapse of MF Global, reports Nick Rummell at Courthouse News Service. After MF Global declared bankruptcy in 2011, investors besieged the company and its CEO, former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, with allegations that they invested billions in several European countries' debt using risky financing structures. The firm faced a $1.6 billion shortfall, and in the rubble of sorting through the bankruptcy MF Global could not account for $750 million of its customers' money. A federal judge in Manhattan ultimately consolidated shareholder suits as one 14-count action against Corzine and 22 other MF Global directors, officers and underwriters. One of the complaints was filed by commodities customers of MF Global, representing the latter's claims upon assignment by the trustee appointed to oversee MF Global's liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act. They sought in part to hold MF Global's accountants at PwC liable, saying MF Global relied PwC's advice to make investments by using repurchase-to-maturity financing, in which bonds are sold and simultaneously agreed to be repurchased at a later date at which time the price might be higher. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero rejected that maneuver last year, however, after finding that MF Global and PwC were in pari delicto, or at equal fault. A three-judge panel with the 2nd Circuit affirmed in a summary order May 22. "A corporation that engages in malfeasance cannot sue outside accountants who negligently failed to detect or prevent that malfeasance," the unsigned decision says. Judges Dennis Jacobs, Rosemary Pooler and Peter Hall sat on the appellate panel. Marrero did reject PWC's in pari delicto defense when considering another of the MF Global cases against it. The July and August 2014 rulings in which Marrero advanced claims against the accountants involved claims brought by MF Global's plan administrator. In that case, Marreo said the doctrine would "insulate an auditor from liability whenever a company pursues a failed investment strategy after receiving wrongful advice from an accountant." In trying to revive their claims against PwC, the commodities customers told the federal appeals court that, as public accountants, PwC performed "a special regulatory function" as a whistle-blower organization. They said that allowing the accounting firm to skirt responsibility would "undermine a federal regulatory scheme," but the 2nd Circuit ruled that the specific case against PwC involved New York State law, and plaintiffs had not identified any federal law that would have pre-empted it and allowed in pari delicto. The 2nd Circuit found the next argument, the lack of a ruling on MF Global's wrongdoing, self-defeating. That is, if MF Global was found innocent of wrongdoing, then PwC's bad auditing could have caused the firm no injury, the court said. Since PwC owed MF Global, not that firm's customers, a duty to perform accurate auditing, the judges also declined to revive professional negligence claims. In April PwC reached a $65 million settlement of a separate class action, accusing it of falsely certifying MF Global's 2010 and 2011 financials. Seven bank underwriters -- including Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch -- settled a related lawsuit by former MF Global stockholders for $74 million in December 2014, Entwistle & Cappucci, the firm that represents the commodities-customer plaintiffs trying to sue PwC, said its clients "are considering their options." "This is a very disappointing decision," managing partner Andrew Entwistle said in an email. MF Global's attorney, Daniel Fetterman of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Freidman, did not return a comment. The Appellants are represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3084 Facsimile: (215) 875-4671 E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net - and - Charles R. Eskridge III, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 The Appellee is represented by: James J. Capra, Jr., Esq. James P. Cusick, Esq. David M. Fine, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556 2222 E-mail: jcapra@kslaw.com jcusick@kslaw.com dfine@kslaw.com The appellate case is Bearing Fund LP, Augustus International Master Fund, LP, Kay P. Tee, LLC, Mark Kennedy, Thomas G. Moran, Robert Marcin, Paradigm Asia Ltd., Paradigm Equities Ltd., Paradigm Global Fund I Ltd., PS Energy Group, Inc., Summit Trust Company, Henry Rogers Varner, Jr., Thomas S. Wacker, Plaintiffs- Appellants v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-1249-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The consolidated case is titled In re MF Global Holdings Ltd. Investment Litigation (Deangelis v. Corzine). PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Will Continue to Defend McCaffree Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc. will continue to aggressively defend the case filed by McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal Life has filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 11, 2014, the court granted the motion. McCaffree filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case. PROGRESO LATINO: "Matute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Francisca Concepcion Matute, Deysi Rosales, Bartolome Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Progreso Latino Grocery Inc., Progreso Honduras Restaurant Inc., Progreso Laundromat, and Denis Paz, Case No. 1:15-cv-03131 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a deli/grocery business at 4503 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11219. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae W. Chun, Esq. Amanda Bell, Esq. FRIEDMAN & ANSPACH 1500 Broadway, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 354-4500 E-mail: jchun@friedmananspach.com abell@friedmananspach.com PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Firm Prepares Suit Over Montara Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------------ Jewel Topsfield, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that an Australian law firm is preparing a class action on behalf of Indonesian fishermen and seaweed farmers who say their livelihoods were devastated by one of Australia's worst oil disasters. In 2009, a leak in the Montara oil field, off the northern coast of Western Australia, spewed tens of thousands of barrels of oil into the Timor Gap. The company responsible, PTTEP Australasia, says studies show no oil reached the Australian and Indonesian mainlands and there was little or no detectable impact on any marine ecosystem or species. But coastal communities in Nusa Tenggara Timur -- one of Indonesia's poorest provinces -- say the oil spill killed fish and seaweed and caused skin diseases. And the Australian Lawyers Alliance has suggested the poverty caused by the oil spill may have led to an increase in people smuggling from the region. West Timor Care Foundation chairman Ferdi Tanoni will fly to Australia to discuss the class action with law firm Ward Keller. He says at least 100,000 people from the coastal community have suffered as a result of the disaster. "The income for local seaweed farmers has dropped between 75 and 90 per cent," Mr Tanoni says. "People are dying because they have no income and their kids can't go to school. Every month I get 10 or 20 text messages from people who say they can't pay their bills." Greg Phelps is a senior associate at law firm Ward Keller, which has been working with the Nusa Tenggara Timur community since 2011. "It's just a blatant injustice -- it's a tragedy beyond belief in many ways." Mr Phelps expects the class action to be launched within six months. However, he says this will not solve the whole problem because it would only benefit those who can demonstrate economic loss. Ward Keller, the Australian Lawyers' Association, the West Timor Care Foundation, theAustralian Greens and the Indonesian government have consistently called on PTTEP to fund a study to determine the impact of the Montara oil spill in Indonesian waters. "But they are not game to do it because they are afraid of what they will find," Mr Phelps says. A PTTEP spokesman says the company is aware of the claims and has been consistently willing to address them with the Indonesian government. "To date, we have not received any credible evidence that oil from Montara caused damage to the environment in West Timor," he says. "The Montara Environmental Monitoring Program showed there was no long-term damage to the marine environment, notably at various reefs and shoals in Australian waters closest to Montara." The spokesman says independent studies published by the Australian Environment Department found 98 per cent of Montara oil stayed in Australian waters. Indonesian fisherman Mustafa Arsyad found blobs of oil in 2009, which when analysed by Victorian laboratory Leeder Consulting were found to match the Montara crude oil. "We want the waters to be clean again so fish will return to the sea," says Mr Arysad, who was forced to become a carpenter in 2011 because none of his men could find fish anymore. "Many fishermen, including people working the crab ponds and shrimp farmers, gave up their jobs because nothing is there anymore. But the ones who suffered the most are the seaweed farmers because they have to soak in the sea everyday." Mr Arysad says the men have itchy boils all over their bodies which medicine won't make go away. "We don't know if the disease was caused by the oil spill or not because there has been no study conducted." Australian Lawyers Alliance legal and policy officer Emily Mitchell says scientific studies that found oil did not reach Indonesia were based on observed evidence. "The real issue is that these studies never did any primary evidence gathering themselves in Indonesia," she says. "Communities saw oil wash up on the coastline and watched their seaweed farms die. In one village in Rote Island, oil swept through the mangroves and destroyed them. The village was subsequently flooded by the ocean." In its submission to the 2012 Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, the Australian Lawyers Alliance said the Montara oil spill may have led to an increase in people smuggling in the region. "In 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission conducted an inquiry into the treatment of people charged with people smuggling while suspected of being minors. Under freedom of information laws, we found that of 157 individuals whose place of origin had been identified, 57.5 per cent came from Nusa Tenggara Timur. Of these, half again, came from Rote Island, which was particularly devastated after the spill," Ms Mitchell says. Law firm Ward Keller has written to three successive Australian prime ministers urging the government to help resolve the Montara tragedy. "Sadly, the Australian government has been shamefully slow in taking any action to assist the victims of Montara in the Nusa Tenggara Timur region. They say they can't do anything -- of course they could do a lot," he says. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop wrote to Mr Phelps reiterating the government had no jurisdiction to compel Australian companies to settle disputes with other governments or perform research activities in another country. However she did say Nusa Tenggara province was a focus area for the Australian aid program. "The government of Indonesia has not asked that Australia's assistance be directed to communities in that region affected by coastal pollution," she wrote. Mr Phelps would like to think Ms Bishop was steering them in the right direction. But he's sceptical; he's been there before. "When we go back and say: 'Here's a request from the Indonesian government saying please help these poor people' they have another excuse." The law firm may be reached at: Greg Phelps, Esq. WARD KELLER LLP Northern Territory House Level 7, 22 Mitchell Street Darwin NT 0800 Australia Phone: 08 8946 2999 Int: +61 8 8946 2999 Email: gregphelps@wardkeller.com.au QEP RESOURCES: Accord in "Gagne" Contingent Upon Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an agreement in the case, Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada, is contingent upon the approval of the courts. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac- Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class certification is pending. Many of the defendants, including QEP, and their insurers have reached an agreement with Trustees in both Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts to resolve all of these claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are contingent upon the approval of the courts. REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lies About Quality of Discs, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service reports that Redbox deceptively advertised and rented downgraded discs as being of Blu-ray quality, and it charged plaintiffs higher rental prices than those charged for non-Blu-ray DVD discs, a class action claims. Redbox operates thousands of self-service and fully automated rental kiosks in the United States where customers can rent movies and video games in two formats, DVD and Blu-ray. In a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County in mid-May, plaintiffs Stephen Lewis and Philip Burns claim that the downgraded discs are not Blu-ray because they contain poor quality audio and the definition is inferior and standard. DVD's or Digital Video Discs are an older form of optical digital storage media that came out in the mid-1990's. In contrast, Blu- ray discs debuted in the mid-to-late 2000's, and contain a higher storage capacity. Plaintiffs claim that until December 2, 2014 Redbox charged $1.20 per day for DVD's, and $1.50 per day for Blu-ray discs. However, as of December 2, 2014 Redbox increased its prices to $1.50 per day for DVD's and $2 for Blu-rays, exclusively of taxes. On its website Redbox refers to Blu-ray as "the name of a next generation high definition optical disc format," the complaint says. Outerwall Inc., Redbox's parent company, states on a recent form 10-Q filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission that "Blu-ray offers consumers a better viewing experience due to the superior picture and sound quality compared to other home video rental formats." Due to Blu-ray reviews and advertising from Redbox and other companies, as well as the higher prices charged for them as compared to regular DVD's, customers expect the Blu-ray discs that they rent from Redbox to be of high-definition and higher audiovisual quality. However, plaintiffs allege that "many of the discs Redbox rents out as Blu-ray quality and at the higher Blu-ray prices are not Blu-ray quality." According to the complaint at no point during the rental process, not on the kiosks, not on its website, not on its mobile app or in any other way, Redbox discloses or informs its customers that the discs being rented are not of the advertised quality. "Redbox engages in this practice because the downgraded discs cost Redbox less to acquire than discs containing original, high- definition, unmodified Blu-ray-quality audio," plaintiffs say. On December 15, 2014, plaintiff Lewis claims that he rented a Blue-ray disc of the movie "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire." However, once at home he says he discovered that the disc contained a standard definition and not a high-definition as Blu- ray discs have. Burns went through a similar situation on September 12, 2014, when he also paid for and rented a Blu-ray disc for the movie "Divergent," and instead claims he got a downgraded disc that it was not of high definition quality as he expected. Plaintiffs claim that the unmodified Blu-ray discs of the movies that they rented have a DTS HD MA 7.1 high definition soundtrack, have eight discrete channels and are considered "lossless" quality. On the other hand, they claim the downgraded discs that they rented have a regular Dolby Digital 5.1 standard definition soundtrack, only have six discrete channels and are considered "lossy" quality. "Plaintiffs Burns and Lewis and similarly situated persons were duped by Redbox's conduct in that they were deprived of the benefits they bargained for and expected to receive by paying the higher rental price for a Blu-ray disc as compared to non-Blu-ray DVD discs," the complaint says. Plaintiffs say that Redbox illegally profited from the rental of downgraded discs as being of Blu-ray quality to unsuspecting customers, who paid a higher rental price. "Unfortunately, at this time, we have no comment to share," said on an e-mail Becca Grady from the public relations department of Edelman on behalf of Outerwall Inc., Redbox's parent company. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages on claims of violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole W. Giuliano, Esq. GIULIANO LAW 500 E Broward Blvd., Suite 1710 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-3012 Telephone: (954) 848-2940 Facsimile: (954) 848-2941 E-mail: nicole@giulianolaw.com ROBERT BOSCH: Sued in Michigan for Fixing Prices of Spark Plugs --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcie Shields, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Robert Bosch and two other companies fixed spark plug prices around the world, auto parts distributors claim in a federal antitrust class action. Distributors from Rhode Island and Connecticut claim that Bosch, the world's largest auto parts supplier; NGK Spark Plug Co., the world's largest manufacturer of spark plus; and Denso Corp. ran a "spark plug cartel" that allocated supplied, rigged bids and fixed prices. Victims included General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, and led to a criminal probe from the Department of Justice, lead plaintiff WAL dba Tri-State Automotive Waterhouse says in the May 18 complaint. It claims that the conspiracy began as early as 2000. So far, 34 companies and 29 executives have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and agreed to pay a total of $2.5 billion in criminal fines, according to the complaint. Citing a Department of Justice statement, the plaintiffs call it largest criminal investigation the Justice Department has ever pursued, "both in terms of scope and potential volume of commerce affected by the alleged illegal conduct." Bosch is based in Germany, the other defendants in Japan. Bosch agreed to pay $57.8 million in criminal fines on March 31. NGK entered its plea in October last year. Lead attorney David Fink, Esq., of Bloomfield, Mich., assisted by eight other law firms, seek class certification and treble damages for Sherman Act violations. RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Montesano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin E. Montesano, et al. v. RW Installation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-22060-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. RW Installation, Inc. is a subcontractor in the construction industry proving finishing work that includes the installation of windows in multistory buildings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 700 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 522-6601 Facsimile: (954) 522-6608 E-mail: jml@kulaw.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denied Class Cert. for Stonewalled Cops ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has again rejected class status for a group of San Francisco police officers who say that age discrimination blocked their paths to promotion, reports Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service. For the third time, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that a group of more than 30 San Francisco police officers have not demonstrated that a class action is the best way to pursue their claims. She said that class litigation will not work because each officer's claim that a promotion was due would still need to be evaluated individually, adding that if she were to grant class status on their state-law allegations, their federal claims would still have to be litigated individually. The police officers filed suit in 2008, fighting what they described as an "unchecked age bias that pervades the culture of the department." They claim the department intentionally ditched a promotions system in which they were poised to advance to inspector positions, instead putting a new system in place in which no one nearing advancement under the old system was promoted. The new system allegedly promoted officers who had not taken the inspectors' exam, but had instead taken an exam to become a sergeant, according to the officers. The city and county of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department were named as defendants alongside then-Police Chief Heather Fong. The suit alleges violations of both state and federal employment discrimination laws. "As a result of the city's department-wide policies and practices, plaintiffs have been denied promotion, despite their qualifications and experience, to the rank of Q-35 Inspector and have earned substantially less than younger, less experienced officers," the officers' complaint states. They say the change had "a disparate impact on or constitute disparate treatment of SFPD officers age 40 and over." In 2010, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton denied the cops' first motion for class certification, finding that their expert had not shown that their claims had enough in common to create a class. They amended their complaint to address Hamilton's concerns, but she again held that their claims lacked commonality. The officers appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed Hamilton in a ruling that said the claims commonly challenged a single policy. But the appeals court said that before a class could be certified, Hamilton must determine whether questions of law or fact that are common to all the suing officers predominate over questions that affect individual officers. Returning to Hamilton's court with a third motion for class certification, the officers sought the status only for their California-law age discrimination claims, not their federal ones. In their motion, the officers gave the judge a choice between certifying 55 or 133 class members. They said that while there were 133 potential class members, those who had been on track for a shot at inspector promotions under the old system, only 55 inspector positions had been filled under the new system. Hamilton's May 8 ruling said the officers satisfied just four of the six elements needed for certification. The core group of 55 potential class members met the requirement that class litigation is a practical alternative to joinder, according to the ruling. Hamilton said the claims of the five class representatives were typical of all 55, and the attorneys for the lead plaintiffs were adequate for all the potential class members. And the 9th Circuit took care of the commonality element in their reversal. However, on the element of predominance, Hamilton said that the officers failed to show that the 55 top test-takers would have automatically been promoted -- prompting the need to look at the merits of each cop's bid for promotion. "Simply put, each member of the class would need to present individualized evidence showing why he or she would have received a Q-35 promotion in a 'but-for' scenario, and each class member's claim would need to be evaluated on an individualized basis," Hamilton wrote. "Plaintiffs have attempted to show that promotions were made strictly in rank order, which would have obviated the need for any individualized analysis, but the evidence does not support their claim," she added. "Thus, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show predominance of common issues over individual ones." On the class certification element of superiority, Hamilton ruled that even if she had given the green light under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the officers would still have to make their federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims individually, meaning that class litigation would not be superior to individually litigated claims. And while plaintiffs' reasoning in hearings and in briefs suggested they would dismiss the federal claims if granted class certification on the state claims, they have not yet asked to dismiss their federal case, Hamilton said. "Plaintiffs overlook the fact that, before any FEHA liability is determined, both the FEHA claim and the ADEA claim would need to be litigated side-by-side," she wrote. "The court must evaluate 'superiority' based on the case currently presented, not on a hypothetical pared-down version of the case," she concluded. The case is Juanita Stockwell, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. C 08-5180 PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. SEGA OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify "Aliens" Gamers Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to certify a class of video gamers who claim that the promos for Sega's "Aliens: Colonial Marines" misrepresented the game's quality. Lead plaintiffs Damion Perrine and John Locke sued Sega of America and Gearbox Software in Federal Court, claiming that the game's misleading promo version induced them to buy it -- which they would not have done had they known what the playing experience was truly like. The game is based on James Cameron's 1986 film "Aliens," according to the complaint. The complaint alleges a "classic bait-and-switch," in which the defendants created a "non-retail but technically superior version" of the game that featured, among other things, "advanced artificial intelligence programming, certain gameplay sequences drawn from the Aliens movie" and "a highly advanced graphics engine" and presented this version to the public as "actual gameplay." But the retail version of the game, Perrine and Locke said, did not meet these expectations. Judge James Donato refused to certify the complaint's proposed class of "all persons in the United States who paid for a copy of the 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' video game either on or before Feb. 12, 2013," because "at a minimum, common questions of fact would not predominate in the class as defined by the complaint: rather, individualized questions of reliance would," Donato said. "Plaintiffs' original definition makes no attempt to limit the class to those who were 'exposed' to the allegedly misleading advertising here, and consequently it is overbroad and not certifiable," the judge continued. At the motion hearing, Locke "rapidly retreated" and proposed limiting the class to "people who viewed an advertisement," which underscored that the plaintiffs' class definition was untenable, Donato said. He also called the proposed class's ascertainability "a pipe dream," because Locke could not recall or identify which promotional videos or trailers he saw that misled him about the game. "The reality of this memory problem is beyond meaningful dispute," Donato said. However, Donato refused to grant Gearbox's motion to dismiss the suit because the action does not fall under the scope of the binding arbitration and class action waiver provisions of the Gearbox "end-use license agreement." The case is Damion Perrine v. Sega of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01962-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. SF FORTY-NINERS: Class Must Be Certified First in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class must be certified before claims that the NFL and Reebok allegedly conspired to fix prices of team gear sold to consumers can be summarily adjudicated, a federal judge ruled May 13. Michael Villa, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v. San Francisco Forty-Niners, Ltd., et al., Case No. 5:12-CV-05481-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. SHORTERS UNIVERSITY: Attorneys to Argue Over Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------- Alan Riquelmy, writing for Rome News Tribune, reported that the federal judge presiding over a civil lawsuit against Shorter University has asked attorneys involved in the case to argue whether he has jurisdiction. U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy gave lawyers until May 26 to explain their positions in the class-action suit. The lawsuit, filed by former student Erin Bishop, claims a security breach at the university led to the theft of hundreds of records with personal information. "Out of an abundance of caution, the Court seeks to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this putative class action," Murphy state in his May 12 order. "The Court has a duty to assure itself that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this case." Andy Davis, lead attorney for Shorter, said such questions about jurisdiction aren't uncommon. "It's a procedural thing," Davis added. According to Davis, plaintiffs and defendants in federal class- action suits typically live in different states. Additionally, federal suits require a certain dollar amount be involved. "We'll be filing our brief, and our comment will be in our brief," Davis said. Bishop filed her suit in February, claiming she's one of many victims. Several others have since joined her suit as plaintiffs. In her original complaint, Bishop says the theft involved the records of possibly 900 former and current students. Over 30 people whose records disappeared had fraudulent tax returns filed on their behalf. Shorter University was negligent in keeping those records in an unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room, the suit states. The Rome university also made no or inadequate efforts to contact people affected, Bishop claims. SLEEP TRAIN: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers & Truckers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class of nonexempt, hourly drivers and truck workers for specialty-mattress retailers claim that they were denied overtime, as well as rest and meal breaks. The case is Eduardo Perez v. The Sleep Train Inc.; Mattress Firm Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Brauer Abidoye, David Cheng, Doug Hall, and Alexandria Witte, of FordHarrison, in an article for JD Supra, said airlines achieved a major victory on May 19, 2015, with an order from the Central District of California granting Southwest Airlines Co.'s motion to dismiss in McKinley v. Southwest Airlines Co., United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-02939-AB-JPR, finding the plaintiff's overtime claims to be preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Significantly, McKinley makes clear that when an employee's claims focus on or require extensive analysis of the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the appropriate course for a court is to divest itself of jurisdiction in order to avoid creating inconsistent interpretations regarding the terms of the CBA. McKinley was a former union employee who brought a putative class action against Southwest, alleging that he was not compensated for all overtime due to him under California law because the employer had used the incorrect rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime. Similar to the standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most employers in California are required to calculate and pay overtime using the "regular rate of pay," which is legally defined to include not only the employee's base hourly rate, but all other forms of compensation, with limited exceptions. RLA Preemption of Overtime Claims However, given that McKinley was a union employee whose wages, hours and working conditions were governed by a CBA, Southwest moved to dismiss the action, in part, on RLA preemption grounds. Under RLA preemption, a court lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes related to state law claims when the dispute involves rights conferred under a CBA, or when resolving the claim requires interpretation or application of a CBA. The underlying rationale for this principle derives from the fact that CBAs under the RLA are applied nationwide. Thus, preemption is designed to promote uniformity and not allow a CBA's validity, interpretation or enforceability to be undermined by varying state law standards. This rationale makes perfect sense given that the historical purpose of the RLA was to promote stability in labor-management relations in the critical airline and railroad industry and to keep disruption of the nation's transportation system to a minimum. After considering Southwest's arguments, the district court granted Southwest's motion on preemption. As part of its rationale, the district court noted that the very nature of McKinley's claims, which sought to attack how Southwest calculated the regular rate of pay, would have required the district court to interpret the CBA to identify each form of pay provided by the CBA, determine when that pay was due, and then decide whether the pay was the type of remuneration that should have been included in Southwest's overtime calculation. Accordingly, the district court concluded that because the merits of McKinley's claims hinged on an in-depth analysis of the various provisions of the CBA, the RLA deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus preempted the claims. Bottom Line for Employers The McKinley opinion significantly strengthens an employer's preemption arguments against state law claims under the RLA, making these types of cases easier and quicker to defeat in federal court. So long as there is evidence of an applicable CBA that governs the railway or airline employee's employment that a court would need to interpret and analyze in-depth to evaluate the plaintiff's claims, a plaintiff's state law claims are practically dead-on-arrival. Likewise, the decision affirms a long-standing purpose of the RLA to not only keep labor disputes to a minimum, but also to promote the independence of the airline industry to resolve issues regarding compensation -- including overtime pay -- and working conditions through collective bargaining and the dispute resolution processes specified by the RLA. SPRINT SPECTRUM: TCPA Class Suit Goes to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- David Krueger, Esq., at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, in an article for JD Supra, said Ronald and Anna Andermann filed suit against Sprint Spectrum L.P., alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"), arising out of several service phone calls they received from Sprint regarding the termination of their cellular service. The Andermanns sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs originally obtained mobile phone service from U.S. Cellular in 2000, which contained an arbitration provision. U.S. Cellular later assigned the contract to Sprint. Sprint informed the plaintiffs that, because their phones were not compatible with Sprint's network, they would have to obtain new cellular phones or obtain service from another company. Sprint subsequently initiated several telephone calls to the plaintiffs, reminding them that their service was about to expire, and offering them several new devices to maintain service. The plaintiffs alleged that these telephone calls were unsolicited and in violation of the TCPA. Sprint moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the customer service agreement. The Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court's denial of the motion, held that arbitration was compelled under the terms of the agreement. Andermann, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., No. 143478 (7th Cir. May 11, 2015). Specifically, the Court held that although the original arbitration provision was between the plaintiffs and U.S. Cellular, Sprint had "stepped into U.S. Cellular's shoes" when it acquired the contract. The plaintiffs argued that the actual assignee of the contract was Sprint Solutions, Inc., rather than the named defendant, Sprint Spectrum L.P. The Seventh Circuit likewise rejected this argument, noting that Sprint Spectrum was designated to be Sprint Solutions's agent to hold the contracts assigned by U.S. Cellular. While the Court ordered that arbitration was proper, Judge Posner, author of the decision, noted that, even though there is long- standing precedent regarding the judicial preference for arbitration, "[i]t's not clear that arbitration . . . should be preferred to litigation" because of the expense and inability to create precedent, especially when it appeared that Sprint had a strong defense on the merits. (Though Judge Posner concluded by also noting that Sprint likely sought arbitration in this matter because the arbitration provision disallowed class arbitration.) Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Misleading Ads ------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers and Settlements reported that The King of Coffee is facing a class actionlawsuit alleging a bit of consumer fraud -- in the guise of misleading advertising. The lawsuit alleges Starbucks advertised prices for product that are lower than those charged by baristas. That's not very nice. Specifically, the Starbucks lawsuit contends that the coffee brewers advertising for reduced-fat turkey bacon breakfast sandwich and sausage and cheddar breakfast sandwich include prices that are lower than that which the plaintiff, Sarah Martin, paid. The turkey bacon sandwich was advertised for $3.45 when it actually costs $3.75, while the sausage and cheddar sandwich was advertised as $3.25 when the actual price is $3.45, according to the complaint. Apparently, there are at least seven Starbucks locations in Los Angeles county where the in store pricing is different from the advertised price. The potential class action suit alleges violations of the California statutes covering consumer protection, false advertising, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud. That should about cover it. Further, the lawsuit contends that Starbuck's policy regarding receipts helped it conceal the alleged false advertisement. "Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes relied to their detriment on Starbucks misrepresentations regarding the price of goods," the complaint states. "Starbucks also has the policy of asking consumers whether they would like a copy of their receipt, which makes it harder to discover the misrepresentation." The putative class would include any Starbucks customer who purchased items at California locations where the wrong price was advertised in the last four years. The case is Sarah Martin et al. v. Starbucks Corp. et al., case number BC582335, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg to Expand Air Bags Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Japan Times reported that a Canadian law firm said it planned to expand its class actions against embattled Japanese auto parts giant Takata and car manufacturers over defective air bags. The plaintiffs are seeking more than 3 billion Canadian dollars (JPY297 billion) from Takata and auto manufacturers Chrysler, Honda, Nissan and Toyota for the loss of value of their vehicles caused by the recall, according to Sutts, Strosberg LLP. The original suit estimated the number of cars recalled in Canada at 1.8 million. That number is now expected to rise after Takata agreed to double a U.S. recall to a record nearly 34 million vehicles earlier. Once revised Canadian figures are released, Sutts, Strosberg LLP will amend its lawsuit to reflect the increased number of cars affected by the recall, a spokesman for the firm said. The defect -- thought to be linked to a chemical propellant that helps inflate the air bags -- can cause them to deploy with explosive force, sending metal shrapnel hurtling toward drivers and passengers. John McIntosh, who is represented by Sutts, Strosberg, told a news conference that he rarely drives his 2003 Toyota Corolla because he fears the airbag is faulty. Another Canadian class action against Takata announced in March by Merchant Law Group LLP is seeking CA$2.4 billion for personal injuries, car repairs and an expected loss in value of their vehicles included in a massive global safety recall. Two other Canadian law firms have also launched suits. If they are certified by a judge, they would likely be lumped into a single class action lawsuit in the coming months. TOP RANK: Faces "Bradley" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment --------------------------------------------------------------- David F. Bradley, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Top Rank Inc.., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 11936 (E.D. Mich., May 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015. Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick A. Decker, Esq. DECKER & DECKER, PLC 8113 Wilson Street Shelby Township, MI 48136 Telephone: (586) 255-4083 Facsimile: (586) 816-0021 E-mail: rdecker@deckerlaw.net TRILOGY FLORAL: "Urra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Urra, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Trilogy Floral, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22042-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Trilogy Floral, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company, which grow, imports and distributes of fresh cut flowers in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Pelier, Esq. 4649 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 301 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 529-9199 Facsimile: (305) 529-9290 E-mail: replier@pelierlaw.com - and - Jeanette Hernandez-Suarez, Esq. JEANETTE HERNANDEZ-SUAREZ, P.A. 11410 North Kendall Drive, Suite 205 Miami, FL 33176 Telephone: (305) 596-1044 Facsimile: (305) 596-0981 E-mail: Hernandez205@yahoo.com UNITE GRILL: "Pintens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Erin Pintens, and Rebecca Gerroll on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Unite Grill LLC, d/b/a, Unite Urban Grill, Joseph D. Krouse, and Jayson Lane, Case No. 1:15-cv-04733 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1450 W. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60642. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shneur Z. Nathan, Esq. HALE LAW LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 341-9646 E-mail: snathan@ahalelaw.com VI GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacinto Lopez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VI Group, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04122-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. VI Group, LLC owns and operates Bread & Butter restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq. Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq. Maria Lauren Chickedantz, Esq. EISNER & MIRER, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com gene@eisnerassociates.com maria@eisnerassociates.com VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faces "Heller" Suit in New York District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shares of Vipshop, a China-based online discount retailer, dropped amid reports of inaccuracies and manipulated sales, a federal class action alleges. The case is Paul Heller v. Vipshop Holdings Ltd.; Ya Shen; Donghao Yang in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. WAL-MART STORES: Settles "Odle" Suit Alleging Sex Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Wal- Mart settled a gender discrimination lawsuit from a former named plaintiff in Betty Dukes' class action that sought to certify 1.5 million female employees. Stephanie Odle, of Lubbock, was an original plaintiff in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to certify a class of current employees in June 2011 due to insufficient commonality between the plaintiffs. In March 2010, the 9th Circuit tossed "former employees" like Odle because they lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Odle filed a separate class action four months after the Supreme Court decision, claiming female workers face "gender discrimination as a result of specific policies and practices in Wal-Mart's regions located in whole or in part in Texas." Odle claimed Wal-Mart fired her from her assistant manager position soon after she was transferred to a Texas store and asked to be considered for future management positions. She accused Wal-Mart of denying women equal opportunities for promotion to management-track positions, as well as equal pay for hourly retail positions and salaried management positions. Odle agreed to voluntarily dismiss her claims on May 15, according to a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. "Plaintiff Stephanie Odle and Wal-Mart have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve Ms. Odle's claims," the filing states. Terms of the settlement are confidential, Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said. "We're pleased that we could resolve these claims with our former associates and put this matter behind us," he said in an e-mail message May 18. Odle's attorneys could not be reached for comment May 17 evening. In April 2014, the 5th Circuit reinstated Odle's individual claims against Wal-Mart. The 5th Circuit reversed U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor's dismissal of claims with prejudice, disagreeing with his finding that rejection of class certification in Dukes removed standing for a plaintiff like Odle to pursue injunctive or declaratory relief. Ruling Odle's claim untimely would require the former class members to file "duplicative, needless individual lawsuits before the court could resolve the class certification issue definitively," Judge Jacques Wiener Jr. wrote. O'Connor had tossed Odle's class claims as well, concluding they were barred by the statute of limitations. He cited the 5th Circuit's "no piggyback rule," which bans former class members from filing a subsequent class action if a court has found the suit inappropriate for class action, assuming the statute of limitations has run for the class action claims. "Piggybacking" of one class action onto another would result in the indefinite tolling of the statute of limitations, the 5th Circuit has ruled. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hal K. Gillespie, Esq. Joseph H. Gillespie, Esq. GILLESPIE, ROZEN & WATSKY, PC 3402 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 720-2009 Facsimile: (214) 720-2291 E-mail: hkg@grwlawfirm.com josephgillespie@grwlawfirm.com - and - Stephen Tinkler, Esq. TINKLER LAW FIRM 309 Johnson Street Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 982-8533 Facsimile: (505) 982-6698 E-mail: set@tinklerfirth.com - and - Brad Seligman, Esq. THE IMPACT FUND 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 Facsimile: (510) 845-3645 - and - Merit Bennett, Esq. BENNETT LAW FIRM 460 St. Michael's Drive, Suite 703 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone: (505) 983-9834 Facsimile: (505) 983-9836 - and - Joseph Sellers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Catherine A. Conway, Esq. Karl G. Nelson, Esq. Olivia A. Adendorff, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2100 McKinney Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 698-3100 Facsimile: (214) 571-2900 E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com knelson@gibsondunn.com oadendorff@gibsondunn.com - and - Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Catherine A. Conway, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cconway@gibsondunn.com - and - Michele L. Maryott, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Facsimile: (949) 475-4220 E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com The case is Stephanie Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-02954-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. WELLS FARGO: Sued for Charging Customers for Unneeded "Solutions" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action accuses Wells Fargo of deceptively charging customers for "solutions" to problems they never had, and services they never asked for. Lead plaintiff Shahriar Jabbari sued the bank May 13, claiming it encourages employees to use illegal, fraudulent, deceptive and abusive tactics to open fee-generating accounts by misrepresenting them or not informing customers at all. Wells Fargo calls the tricks "solutions," and induces employees to use them by giving them "unrealistic sales quotas," Jabbari claims. Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer filed a similar complaint against Wells Fargo in early May. The bank's abusive "solutions" include hidden fees, adding unwanted secondary accounts to primary accounts without permission, misrepresentations and no representations at all, Jabbari says. "(T)he bank also routinely opens customer accounts and issues credit cards without the customer's authorization or knowledge," the lawsuit states. "Then, when customers fail to maintain mandatory account balances, pay fees for accounts they did not know existed, or comply with some other undisclosed policy, Wells Fargo charges the customer a fee. Often Wells Fargo simply 'pays' this resulting fee by taking money from the clients' existing accounts. Or Wells Fargo sends the 'debt' the customers 'owe' to a debt collection agency." If bank employees fail to meet their quotas, they could lose pay or lose their jobs, Jabbari claims. "Because the stakes are so high for the employees, and the quotas so difficult, Wells Fargo employees inevitably must resort to using abusive and fraudulent tactics," he says. Nor does the bank tell customers if their personal information is compromised in doing all this, according to the complaint. Wells Fargo spokesman Ancel Martinez said the company will "vigorously" defend itself against the allegations. "We do not have a system that matches the description in the complaint, and all our systems are designed to comply with applicable laws, including privacy laws," Martinez said in an email. "Wells Fargo's culture is focused on the best interests of its customers and creating a supportive, caring and ethical environment for our team members." Jabbari seeks class certification and treble damages for unfair competition, consumer law violations and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting and Customer Records Acts. The Los Angeles city attorney warned customers to pay attention to online accounts and review bank statements for suspicious withdrawals ranging from $25 to $100, according to a statement on Keller Rohrback's Web site. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LAW OFFICES 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com YONKERS, NY: Sued for Charging Residents Annual Inspection Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Yonkers charges residents an annual fire and building safety inspection fee but don't give them annual inspections, a class action claims in Westchester County Supreme Court. ********* 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 * * *