/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 131 Headlines ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Faces "Petrillo" Suit Over FDCPA Violation AIR PRODUCTS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims AKI 36: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERICAN EXPRESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in W.D. Va. Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-Vs AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Ariz. Over Gender Bias ANIMAL WELFARE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ANTHEM INC: Faces "New" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach AOL INC: California Court Dismisses "Derby" TCPA Suit AT&T CORP: Faces "Lilienthal" Over Alleged Data Throttling BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: 9th Circ. Struck Down Fetal Pain Law BARRICK GOLD: Court Upholds Carriage Ruling Favoring Law Firms BASIC RESEARCH: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says BEST THAI: "Bazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages BROADCOM CORP: Andrews & Springer Probing Merger-Related Breach CADIZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit CAFEPRESS INC: Aug. 11 Hearing on $8MM Securities Suit Settlement CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Holmby" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CALIFORNIA: Governor, et al., Sued by Inmates Over Valley Fever CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players Sue Over Head Injuries CCS CREDIT: Faces "Marquez" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued Over Failure to Provide Best Execution CHINA FINANCE: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Rosen Law Firm CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders CML MEDIA: Faces "Kelly-Duarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CORE LABORATORIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Kaczmarczyk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Britschgi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages DNJ INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims E*TRADE FINANCIAL: SPDR S&P Receives Class Action Payment EDISON INT'L: "Tibble" Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Plan Execs EL SENORIAL: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FORSTER GARBUS: Faces "Antista" Suit Over FDCPA Violation GOWAITER BUSINESS: Faces "Schoolcraft" Suit Over TCPA Violation GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Arbolaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Unauthorized Background Checks HEWLETT PACKARD: Falsely Marketed Printers, "Wolf" Suit Claims HEWLETT-PACKARD: $100-Mil. Deal for Autonomy-Related Suit IGNITE RESTAURANT: Joe's Crab IPO Suit Ends in $1.8MM Settlement INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Saname" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime INTER-CONTINENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims JOHNSON CONTROLS: Illegally Installs Recording Devices, Suit Says LIONSGATE: Moves To Settle 'Wendy Williams Show' Intern Suit LU SIMON BUILDERS: Faces Possible Class Suit by Bldg. Residents LVNV FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Claims MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removed "Pitter" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania MERCK & CO: Won't Disclose Mumps Vaccine Efficacy, Scientists Say METALICO INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Total Merchant Merger METALICO INC: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Merger with Total Merchant MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Deal in Homeless Class Suit Amended MIKE HUCKABEE: 8th Cir. Reinstates TCPA Class Suit MOGU SUSHI: Sued in N.Y. Over Corporate Asset Misappropriation NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Opposes Concussion Suit Deal NATIONAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Drivers NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Stricklen" Suit to New Jersey Court NESTLE PURINA: Class Complaint Over Beneful Dog Food Amended NEW ALLIANCE BANK: 2nd Circ. Ruling Further Splits Circuits OLD NATIONAL: 7th Circ. Poised to Rule in Data Breach Suit ONTARIO: Abuse Settlement Includes $42,000 Individual Payout PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Greene" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PARKING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Crumbaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PASCO, FL: "Meeks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PENNYVISION LLC: Faces "Joharifard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PEPSI CO: Chemical Disclosure Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules PHOENIX LIFE: Settles Bad Faith Insurance Suit for $42-Mil. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Geremia" Suit Santa Barbara Oil Spill PUMA BIOTECH: Aug. 3 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Antitrust Class Action Dismissed RANDY VISSER: Nissan General Manager Facing Federal Fraud Charges RHODE ISLAND: Judge Approves Settlement in Pension Overhaul Case ROSS DRESS: Suit Over Unpaid Bag Check Time Sent to Arbitration SINGING RIVER: Judge Names Reeves & Mestayer as Lead Counsel SIRIUS XM: Copyright Royalties Suit Stayed Pending Appeal SOLAZYME INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports SOUTH CAROLINA: Educ. Commission Sued Over Student Discrimination SPOKEO INC: "Robins" Can Redefine Standing in Federal Court STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports STEVENS VAN: Faces "Britts" Suit Over Charge-Backs Policies SUNRISE, FL: Faces "Wishner" Suit Over Sewage Rate Hike SUNRUN INC: Sued Over Violation of Calif. Licensing Laws TAISHAN GYPSUM: Trial Underway on Chinese Drywall Class Suit TENNESSEE: Class Status Sought in Basic Education Program Suit TYSON FOODS: Justices Review Appeal in Workers' Class Suit UPONOR INC: To Resolve US Class Suits Through Enhanced Warranty US PENSION COMMITTEE: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Investment Options VENDOME HOLLYWOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: July 20 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid VIRGINIA: NRV Inmates Sue Warden Over Living Conditions VISION FINANCIAL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation WASTE FACILITIES: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Services Enrollment WELLS FARGO: Transferred "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. California WESTMOUNT, QC: Ex-Hockey Coach Faces New Sexual Abuse Allegation XUNLEI LIMITED: Aug. 7 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid YINGLI GREEN: Says Class Suits Are Groundless * Harke Clasby Managing Partner Named in Fla. Legal Elite 2015 ********* ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Faces "Petrillo" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Petrillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Absolute Credit, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03691 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com AIR PRODUCTS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04736 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants' uniform policy or practice of obtaining an applicant's consumer report by and through the use of a legally invalid authorization, which fails to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation who manufactures, processes, produces and provides gases, materials and chemicals for industrial uses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Bicvan Brown, Esq. Jennifer Han, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net bbrown@mahoney-law.net jhan@mahoney-law.net AKI 36: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Chang You Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Aki 36 Inc. d/b/a Aki Sushi West and d/b/a Chopstick House, Mei Yang, Xiong Hui Yang, Min Hui Yang, John 01 Doe and John 02 Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04938 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal address at 128 West 36th Street, New York, NY 10018. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Blotzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Express Company, Case No. 8:15-cv-01011 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. American Express Company is an American credit card company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in W.D. Va. Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-Vs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Cushing, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. American Honda Motor Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00028-GEC (W.D. Va., June 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the Virginia individuals who have purchased or leased a 2015 Honda CR-V, with known defect which causes abnormal and excessive vibrations. American Honda Motor Company is a California corporation with its headquarters located in Torrance, California. Honda is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Kyle McNew, Esq. MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & TWEEL, PLLC P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 951-7200 Facsimile: (434) 951-7218 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Ariz. Over Gender Bias ----------------------------------------------------- Marsha L. Fay v. AmTrust North America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 01141-DJH (D. Ariz., June 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's practice of discriminating between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to the Plaintiff at a rate less than the rate at which it pays wages to male employees who work under similar working conditions within the same establishment and who perform substantially equal jobs, and who have job duties requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility as the Plaintiff. AmTrust North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides property and casualty and workers' compensation insurance to small and mid-size businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Hugh Schleier, Esq. Tod F. Schleier, Esq. SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1090 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 277-0157 Facsimile: (602) 230-9250 E-mail: brad@schleierlaw.com tod@schleierlaw.com ANIMAL WELFARE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Orellana and all others similarly situated v. Animal Welfare Society of South Florida, Inc. and Maximo Echeverria, Case No. 1:15-cv-22362 (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a non-Profit animal welfare facility in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Pastukh, Esq. ALEXANDER PASTUKH, P.A. 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 502-5715 E-mail: apastukh@appalaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "New" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04787 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information from data breach. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith David Griffin, Esq. Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI | KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com AOL INC: California Court Dismisses "Derby" TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Caleb Skeath, writing for The National Law Review, reported that on June 1, the Northern District of California dismissed a putative TCPA class action against AOL, finding that the plaintiff had failed to allege that AOL utilized an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS), as required to state a cause of action under the TCPA. In dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in Derby v. AOL, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), which allows individuals to send instant messages as text messages to cell phones, constitutes an ATDS. Instead, the court agreed with AOL's argument that AIM relied on "human intervention" to send the messages at issue, which foreclosed the possibility of potential TCPA liability. (Covington represented AOL in this case.) The decision should be beneficial to a variety of services that enable their users to send text messages to cell phones. The TCPA's prohibitions include a ban on using an ATDS to call cellular telephones for informational purposes without the prior express consent of the recipient. The FCC and courts have extended the reach of the statute to include text messages. However, the FCC has stated that only equipment that has the capacity to operate "without human intervention" may qualify as an ATDS. The plaintiff in Derby alleged that he received three text messages from an AIM user that were intended for another individual, which the court recognized were "presumably . . . the result of the sender inputting an incorrect phone number." After the receiving the third message, the plaintiff alleged that he sent a text message to AIM to block future texts from the AIM user, and that he received back a text confirmation of his request. In analyzing TCPA liability for the first three text messages, the court noted that the plaintiff's complaint "affirmatively alleges that AIM relies on human intervention to transmit text messages to recipients' cell phones." The court followed precedent from other Ninth Circuit district courts rejecting ATDS arguments where the equipment at issue relied on humans to press buttons on phones or manually enter telephone numbers into the system. Since the complaint demonstrated that "extensive human intervention is required to send text messages through defendant's AIM service," the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under the TCPA with respect to the three text messages sent by an AIM user. The court also analyzed potential TCPA liability for the separate confirmation text message that Derby alleged he had received from AIM. Again citing relevant authority, the court held that "a single message sent in response to plaintiff's text . . . is not the kind of intrusive, nuisance call that the TCPA prohibits." The court concluded that Derby, having sent the "block" request from his cell phone, had "knowingly released" his number to AIM and consented to receive a confirmation text from AIM at that number. The court's opinion advocated for a "common sense" approach to TCPA liability, finding that the statute should not be utilized to "punish the consumer-friendly practice of confirming requests to block future unwanted texts." Accordingly, the court also dismissed the TCPA claim based on the confirmation text message for failure to state a claim. AT&T CORP: Faces "Lilienthal" Over Alleged Data Throttling ---------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Lilienthal, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. AT&T, Corp. and AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01045-HGD (N.D. Ala., June 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants' data throttling practices, where they reduce the data speed for unlimited mobile data plan customers for the rest the billing cycle. The Defendants are major retailer of smartphones and provider of wireless broadband internet access service for smartphones. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington St., Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: tony@mastandoartrrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com - and - Douglas C. Martinson II, Esq. MARTINSON & BEASON PC 115 Northside Square Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 776-7006 Facsimile: (256) 533-1696 E-mail: dougii@martinsonandbeason.com BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: 9th Circ. Struck Down Fetal Pain Law -------------------------------------------------------- Austin Ruse, writing for Breitbart, reported that a recent federal appeals court decision striking down an Idaho pro-life law wades into the very stickiest parts of the abortion wars in the United States. The case highlights the controversial question of prosecuting women as opposed to doctors for committing abortion, the dangers of self-medication now available to pregnant women because of the easy online availability of abortion drugs, and the wave of new legislation banning abortion after the 20th week of gestation. In 2011 Jennie Linn McCormack was charged for aborting her own child in violation of a 1972 law forbidding self-abortion. McCormack says she needed to self-abort because she was not able to drive the two hours to Salt Lake City from her home in Pocatello, Idaho, and she also feared the cost of aborting her child was beyond her abilities. So, she asked her sister in Mississippi to buy the abortion drug for her online that she proceeded to use at home. The abortion drug is not supposed to be used exclusively at home. It is a three-step process that includes taking the first dose in a doctor's office, the second dose at home ,and then an office visit to ensure the pregnancy has ended. Using it without a doctor's supervision is fraught with danger. McCormack took the drug and delivered a dead child of between 19 and 23 weeks old, well beyond the 9 weeks the FDA approved it for use. In fact, using RU-486 after 9 weeks is dangerous, but such are the dangers of a drug that can be bought online and self- administered. McCormack was rightly distressed by the size of the child she delivered, so she wrapped the child in a blanket and put him in a freezer on her back porch. A friend of a friend called the police, and McCormack was arrested and prosecuted for performing an abortion on herself in violation of the 1972 law. At the time pro-life leaders actually complained about the prosecution. Pro-life groups oppose the prosecution of women, favoring instead the prosecution of abortionists. Pro-lifers consider women to be the victims of abortion. Marjorie Danenfelser said at the time that the prosecution was "not acceptable. We do not think women should be criminalized. Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists, and not for women." The charges against McCormack were dropped for lack of evidence, but her attorney initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of rural women who might have a hard time getting to largely urban- based abortion clinics. Her attorney said the suit included the twenty-week abortion ban even though it had not been in force at the time of her abortion and therefore she was prosecuted under an entirely different law. He included it in the suit because, he said, it also hinders a woman's ability to get a constitutionally protected abortion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which the Idaho governor signed into law in April 2011. The Court struck down several other laws, too, including the 1972 law that McCormack violated along with a law requiring all second trimester abortion be performed in hospitals and a law requiring abortion clinics to adhere to standards of surgical clinics. The decision effects Washington, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii. The 9th Circuit is considered the most liberal federal court and is also the court that is most overturned by the Supreme Court. A number of these 20-week abortion bans have passed around the country, and some of them have been challenged. A 20-week ban just passed the House of Representatives. They are based on the proposition that an unborn child begins to feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation. These laws run into the Supreme Court rulings that abortion is allowed up to viability and then regulated, at least theoretically, after that. These bans have been challenged on the viability question. The 20-week bans will no doubt end up in the Supreme Court. BARRICK GOLD: Court Upholds Carriage Ruling Favoring Law Firms -------------------------------------------------------------- Marg Bruineman, writing for Law Times, reported that a new Divisional Court ruling upholding an earlier decision granting carriage to a group of law firms in the Barrick Gold Corp. class action has failed to provide the guidance many had hoped for, some lawyers say. While Justice Ian Nordheimer had raised significant doubts about the carriage ruling when he granted leave to appeal in December, some of the lawyers involved say the Divisional Court ruling on the issue failed to address the concerns. "They paid no regard to it," says Koskie Minsky LLP's Garth Myers. "They had opportunity to create some law that would be extremely helpful to the class action bar" and gave up that chance, adds Myers, an associate at one of the firms on the losing side of the carriage battle. On May 21, the Divisional Court upheld Justice Edward Belobaba's carriage decision from early December 2014. The ruling included a statement that reviewing courts should defer to such decisions in the absence of an error of law. The decision dealt with a bid by a group of law firms led by Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP and including Rosen Naster LLP and the Merchant Law Group LLP in competition with another group of class action lawyers led by Koskie Minsky and including Sutts Strosberg LLP, Siskinds LLP, and Groia & Co. to represent shareholders in a proposed class action against Barrick Gold and four of its executives. In the latest ruling, a three-member panel of the Divisional Court affirmed December's decision by Belobaba to grant the Rochon Genova group carriage based on the many claims it had advanced and the relative state of preparation. The Koskie Minsky group had advanced a single claim arguing for a leaner approach. In the decision, Justice Alison Harvison Young noted the broad discretion granted to judges and said the reviewing courts should defer to their decisions in the absence an error of law. She also found the primary concern is to determine which group is most likely to advance the interests of the class. "The appellants argue that although the motion judge articulated the correct factors, he failed to apply them such that he did err in law and/or principle, and also that he misapprehended the evidence or record so that his findings also fell into palpable and overriding error. I disagree. In my view, [the Koskie Minsky group's] submissions amount to no more than an attempt to convince this court to reweigh the factors applied by the motion judge and do not demonstrate any reversible error in the exercise of his discretion to determine which group should obtain carriage of these class proceedings," wrote Harvison Young for the panel. After announcing two years ago that Chilean courts had suspended its Pascua-Lama mining project, Barrick's share price dropped. That development prompted several class actions by shareholders in Canada and the United States alleging misrepresentation about the progress of the mine. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Joel Rochon of Rochon Genova says the latest decision provides plaintiff counsel and trial-level courts with further direction when it comes to the issue of which lawyers or firms should have carriage in a class action. The Barrick Gold case, he says, outlines the unique facts that drove the motion judge to decide in favour of the team led by his firm. "The divisional court has certainly provided a level of clarity in releasing the decision," says Rochon. Peter Jervis, senior counsel at Rochon Genova, says each carriage decision turns on its own facts and circumstances but notes the theme emphasized by the latest decision is that ultimately the court will consider which counsel team is best able to represent and advance the interests of the class. While lawyers with the other group have until June 4 to indicate if they will appeal the latest decision, Myers says that in granting carriage to the Rochon Genova group, the Divisional Court didn't address the issues raised by the judge hearing the motion for leave to appeal in which he criticized Belobaba's findings. In granting leave to appeal, Nordheimer found Belobaba's "reasons reveal a fundamental disagreement with the basic principle" of previous case law. He also found a problem with Belobaba's determination that the court wasn't to assess a claim's likelihood of success on a carriage motion. The Divisional Court decision, says Myers, encourages competing counsel to spend more time and money to present as much evidence as possible and doesn't provide the direction sought. "Predictability is a crucial element of our justice system and I think this decision introduces unpredictability in terms of who gets carriage of a class action," says Myers. That the appellate courts will give significant deference to the motions judge's discretion in the absence of a legal error provides some clarification, says Lawrence Thacker of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP. "Once the correct legal test is identified, there will be deference given to the application and the facts and the weighing of the evidence that establishes those facts," says Thacker. "It makes it clear simplicity or complexity in itself is not a deciding factor." Brian Radnoff, a partner at Lerners LLP, sees some clarification in the decision but says it leaves a lot of discretion to the motion judge. In a situation such as this that involves very qualified counsel on both sides, the outcome is likely to be uncertain, he suggests. "These kinds of carriage battles are going to come up again and again," says Radnoff. "The bottom line is there's not going to be a lot of certainty about who's going to win these motions." Perhaps one approach to stem the litigation, Radnoff suggests, is for more law firms to group together to represent the same class and avoid taking the carriage motion to court. Dimitri Lascaris, leader of Siskinds LLP's securities class actions group, sees flaws in the jurisprudence around class action carriage motions. He believes the courts are reluctant to engage in a vigorous examination and comparison of the competing groups. Siskinds is one of the four firms, along with Koskie Minsky, seeking carriage in this case. "They're just too quick, in my view, to put us in the same hopper," says Lascaris. Lascaris says the plaintiffs' bar for class actions in Canada is relatively small. He suggests carriage decisions should focus more on the areas of law in which the firms practise rather than giving equal weight to the various players. Having expertise in class actions procedure, he says, only represents a limited part of the legal work involved. Knowledge of the relevant area of law can distinguish one firm from another, he adds, suggesting the Barrick Gold case requires counsel to have a background in securities law. One option for dealing with the issue would be the use of an arbitrator to determine which firm should have carriage of a class action, according to Lascaris. Using an arbitrator could lead to a quicker and less expensive resolution, says Lascaris, who also sees a potential benefit from a closed-door discussion before someone other than the judge who will ultimately manage the case. "We need to fundamentally reform the way we do carriage motions in this country," says Lascaris. BASIC RESEARCH: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Adelaide Spence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Basic Research, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04945- NRB (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers of Vysera-CLS dietary weight loss supplements, that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as a starch blocker that reshape the entire body in 30 days without requiring to follow a low-calorie diet or work out. The product at issue does not actually cause significant weight or fat loss. Scientific studies demonstrated that substantial weight loss through mal-absorption of calories alone without diet and exercise is not scientifically feasible. Basic Research, LLC is a nutraceutical company that develops, manufactures, promotes, markets, distributes, and sells cosmetic, nutritional supplements, and dietary supplements throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Domenick Zaremba, Esq. Robert Corbett, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC 40 Wall Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 400-7223 Facsimile: (212) 400-7224 E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com rob@zbblaw.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. Laura Killian Mummert, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC 101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com mummert@lawgsp.com BEST THAI: "Bazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Uriel Bazan, et al. v. Best Thai on Grammercy Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04830 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Best Thai on Grammercy Inc. owns and operates Rhong-Tiam Express restaurant at 31 East 21st Street, New York, New York 10010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lizabeth Schalet LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP 500 North Broadway, Ste. 105 Jericho, NY 11753-2131 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 Facsimile: (516) 931-0030 E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com BROADCOM CORP: Andrews & Springer Probing Merger-Related Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors of Broadcom Corporation ("Broadcom" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to Avago Technologies Limited ("Avago"). On May 28, 2015, the two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Avago will acquire Broadcom in a merger worth $37 million. As a result of the merger, Broadcom shareholders are only anticipated to receive $54.50 per share in cash or 0.4378 shares of the newly-formed company in exchange for each share of Broadcom. After news of the merger became public, Broadcom's share price fell and closed at $56.25. Andrews & Springer's investigation has so far uncovered that the consideration Broadcom shareholders are expected to receive is inadequate. Following the merger, Broadcom shareholders are expected to be substantially diluted, owning only 32% of the combined company. While Broadcom claims that shareholders will receive a premium for their shares, the $54.50 per share consideration represents a 4.8% discount compared to Broadcom's $57.16 per share price on May 27, 2015, the day before the merger was announced. Additionally, analysts at Yahoo! Finance have set a $63.00 per share price target for Broadcom, which is approximately 15.5% more than what Broadcom shareholders are expected to receive. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. The firm may be reached at: Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com CADIZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray reminds investors of the June 23, 2015 deadline in the class action filed on behalf of investors of Cadiz, Inc. ("Cadiz" or the "Company") who purchased shares from March 10, 2014 through April 21, 2015, inclusive (the, "Class Period"). Investors who wish to be appointed as a class representative have until June 23, 2015 to make a motion to the court. 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, a report 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 Casey Sadler, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CAFEPRESS INC: Aug. 11 Hearing on $8MM Securities Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the CafePress Inc. Securities Class Action: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CAFEPRESS INC. ("CAFEPRESS" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S MARCH 28, 2012 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 11, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2, Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 2, 2015 ("Stipulation") of the above-captioned action ("Litigation") for $8,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below); (3) to pay Plaintiffs for their time and expenses they incurred in representing the Settlement Class in this Litigation out of the Settlement Fund; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CafePress pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus ("Registration Statement") issued in connection with CafePress' March 28, 2012 initial public offering ("IPO") during the period beginning on March 28, 2012 and ending on July 10, 2013 ("Settlement Class Members"), against CafePress, certain of its key executives and directors, and Underwriters of CafePress' IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO, including: by failing to disclose in the Registration Statement that for several quarters prior to the IPO, there were weakening sales in the Company's "shop" segment, softening international sales and fluctuations in key product demand that placed immense pressure on CafePress' core business and threatened the Company's operating results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that CafePress was undergoing severe challenges in its small shops segment such that sales and revenue growth, both domestically and internationally, in the shop segment was declining, and that consumer search traffic to CafePress' small shops segment had undergone substantial erosion, which made it difficult for CafePress to drive search traffic to its consumer websites. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CAFEPRESS COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 28, 2012 IPO, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than August 31, 2015) or submitted electronically no later than August 31, 2015. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by August 31, 2015, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of this Litigation. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the settlement or exclude yourself from the settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.cafepressshareholderlitigation.com, or by writing to: CafePress Inc. Shareholder Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Phone: 1-888-566-1150 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel: IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN JULY 21, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' SETTLEMENT COUNSEL BY JULY 21, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. Rick Nelson, Esq. Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 1.619.525.3990 Toll free: 1.800-350-6003 Fax: 1.619.525.3991 CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Holmby" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Holmby, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG15774954 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites and does business in Alameda County and elsewhere within California. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylaw.com dmara@turleylaw.com CALIFORNIA: Governor, et al., Sued by Inmates Over Valley Fever --------------------------------------------------------------- John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reported that four inmates who contracted Valley fever while housed at prisons across California are suing state officials including Gov. Jerry Brown, saying they knew of the fungal infection's dangers but did nothing to protect prisoners. The legal actions are the latest in a string of federal civil rights lawsuits filed by multiple Southern California law firms on behalf of inmates housed mainly at Avenal and Pleasant Valley state prisons who have contracted the fungal infection. Pleasant Valley is located in Coalinga. One lawsuit filed late has 45 plaintiffs from the two prisons. A third, filed in July 2013, seeks class-action status on behalf of African Americans, those older than 55 and others with compromised immune systems who contracted Valley fever while at either prison. Attorneys representing some of the men, however, say in legal filings in U.S. District Court in Fresno that the problem goes far beyond those two prisons. Plaintiffs in the latest round of lawsuits come from Kern Valley State Prison near Delano, Corcoran and Wasco as well as Avenal and Pleasant Valley. They say state prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in housing inmates vulnerable to Valley fever in the prisons. "The American system of criminal justice requires that state correctional authorities carry out the exact sentence determined by the judicial process -- no more and no less," the lawsuit filed on behalf of the more than 160 Avenal and Pleasant Valley inmates, states. "Instead, Defendants knowingly imposed on plaintiffs a lifelong, crippling, and sometimes fatal disease in addition to their lawfully determined sentences." Minorities susceptible A vast majority of the inmates are minorities, and some of the lawsuits name racial discrimination, as well as the civil rights allegations, among its charges. The lawsuits say studies show that blacks, Hispanics, American Indian and Asians, particularly Filipinos, are especially susceptible to contracting Valley fever. As new lawsuits are being filed, however, some earlier Valley fever suits are facing legal struggles. U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone recommended that two of the lawsuits -- one of them from October 2013 that has 159 inmates from Avenal and Pleasant Valley as plaintiffs -- be dismissed. The final decision on Boone's recommendation lies with U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. As of now, both cases are still active. Luis Patino, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said "the health and safety of state employees and inmates in California prisons is of the utmost importance to the state. However, CDCR does not comment on pending litigation." The latest lawsuits come four months after the state screened nearly 37,000 inmates for Valley fever to see which ones could safely be housed at Avenal State Prison in Kings County and Pleasant Valley State Prison. After the tests, more than 2,100 inmates were moved from the two prisons. "CDCR has been working to mitigate Valley fever for years," Patino said. "We have put in place numerous measures in our prisons to reduce the amount of dust, and the movement of dust, particularly into buildings. We have also moved inmates deemed at higher risk and who chose to move out of the two prisons in the Valley fever endemic zone. We have also worked with state and federal public health partners to study further methods of reducing the incidence of Valley fever in Avenal and Pleasant Valley prisons. To date, more than 2,100 inmates were moved from two prisons and mitigation efforts continue." Danger from disease Jason Feldman of the Venice law firm of Feldman & Wallach, which has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of inmates, including being one of three firms involved in the four filed, said the prisoner movement was a good first step, but more needs to be done. "We applaud the transfer order, which is aimed at mitigating risk in the future, but there are scores of people who are already sick and that needs to be dealt with also," he said. Valley fever is an infection that develops when people breathe Coccidioides fungal spores found in soil or dust. Most people exposed to the fungus do not get sick, but some develop flu-like symptoms that last a few days or couple of weeks. Others, however, develop an infection that can spread from the lungs to the rest of the body, causing meningitis and death. The disease has increased from 5.3 cases per 100,000 people in 1998 to 42.6 cases per 100,000 in 2011 in states where it has become endemic. California has about 31% of the cases, health officials have said. Attorneys for the inmates say state health officials have known about the prevalence of Valley fever, especially around Coalinga and Avenal, and the disease's risks to inmate health, for more than 50 years. "Locating these prisons in these hyper-endemic region of the Central Valley, significantly overcrowding them, housing inmates at risk or at increased risk from Valley fever there, and failing to implement any of the remedial measures recommended to reduce inmate exposure to (the disease) has had drastic repercussions on the health and welfare of California's inmate population," one of the lawsuits states. That same suit says that by 2006 Pleasant Valley State Prison "was known to be extraordinarily dangerous." Since 2005, Feldman said, 70 inmates have died as a result of exposure to Valley fever. Illness called 'punishment' Each of the lawsuits is in various stages of litigation at U.S. District Court in Fresno. Both of Fresno's U.S. District judges, Lawrence J. O'Neill and Anthony W. Ishii, have been assigned cases. State prison records show some of the men are still incarcerated, but it appears all are now housed at prisons outside of the Central Valley. No records could be found for others, which likely indicates they could have been released. Once an inmate is infected, "no compensation is provided for this additional punishment that has been unfairly added to their sentences," some of the lawsuits say. One an inmate is released, the suits say, the state doesn't provide health care or financial assistance to deal with "the overwhelming cost and hazards associated with Valley fever." Feldman said one of the problems is that inmates often come from other parts of California or the nation, so they have no immunity built up against the disease. Many of those inmates after being released "go back to their communities and become health problems to those communities." Medical professionals there don't know how to handle Valley fever, and the inmates often have no insurance to pay for treatments. "They're already challenged enough to get jobs or income, and now they're also strapped with this debilitating disease," Feldman said. Many of the lawsuits tell similar stories. One of the latest ones filed is for Luis Negron, 36, a Hispanic man who was sent to Wasco State Prison in mid-2011. At the time, the lawsuit says, he didn't have Valley fever. A short time later, however, he began to exhibit symptoms of the infection. Negron "continues to suffer from the disease, he has underwent significant weight loss, lesions and red spots on his chest, has a persistent cough, night sweats, headaches, lethargy, and he experiences severe emotional distress, including depression," his suit says. State prison records show Negron is now housed at Ironwood State Prison in the Mojave Desert city of Blythe. Besides Brown, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is named in many, but not all, of the lawsuits. Also named are wardens of the various prisons and former wardens, as well as current and former heads of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Even with multiple lawsuits filed, more could be on the way. Feldman said this past month alone his firm received four calls from families of inmates or former inmates. He said his firm has been in contact with 800 current or former inmates "and we believe the number to be significantly higher than that, at least twice that." CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players Sue Over Head Injuries -------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Rush, writing for the The Star, reported that two former Canadian Football League players, including former Toronto Argonauts running back Eric (The Flea) Allen, have filed a $200- million lawsuit, alleging the CFL knew and withheld information about brain damage caused by repeated blows to the head. Allen, 66, who played with the Argos from 1972-1975, lives in South Carolina and is being cared for by his 80-year-old mother in the family home. He is joined in the lawsuit by former defensive back Korey Banks, 35, who was with Ottawa, Winnipeg and B.C. from 2004-2014. Banks lives in Georgia. They are suing the league, former commissioner Mark Cohon, leading brain-injury expert Dr. Charles Tator and a Toronto neurology clinic, the Krembil Neuroscience Centre. Allen and Banks are the representative plaintiffs in a class- action lawsuit that was filed on May 29 on behalf of all retired players since 1952. The pleadings state that at least since 1952 the CFL had specific knowledge of the harmful effects of repeated blows to the head and hid these facts. Allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court. Former CFL player Arland Bruce, who is suing the CFL in a separate case, is caught in a jurisdictional dispute and it is unclear if his case will go ahead. The latest lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew that the symptoms of permanent brain injury include disorientation, slurred speech, attention deficit, headaches, memory impairment and personality disturbances. There were no medical benefits available to an injured CFL player once the first regular season game of the following season began, the suit claims. Professional athletes, including CFL players, are excluded from claiming workers' compensaton benefits. Many members of the class are not residents of Canada and were not eligible for provincial medical benefits. In addition, the suit alleges, Cohon supported the work of Tator and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre knowing that their work was "against the weight of scientific evidence." Neither the CFL nor the Krembil Neuroscience Centre would comment. CCS CREDIT: Faces "Marquez" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Myrna Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCS Credit Collection Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-03690 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued Over Failure to Provide Best Execution ----------------------------------------------------------- Francis Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02945 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' failure to route its brokerage clients' trades to the exchange or trading venue offering the best execution for the trade. The Charles Schwab Corporation is a holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in securities brokerage, banking, money management and financial advisory services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: andrewb@rgrdlaw.com bennyg@rgrdlaw.com aprice@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com CHINA FINANCE: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Rosen Law Firm ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of China Finance Online Co., Ltd. JRJC, +16.17% American Depository Shares between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for China Finance Online investors under the federal securities laws. To join the China Finance Online class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-628.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 and/or failed to disclose that: (1) China Finance Online's Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer Zhiwei Zhao had an indirect equity interest in Langfang Developer at the time of the Company's investment; (2) Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions at three key Chinese Variable Interest Entities of China Finance Online; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, China Finance Online's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 4, 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-628.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. CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders ----------------------------------------------------------- Umaima Shafiq, writing for Gulf-Times, reported that investors in the fraudulent City Group company that had branches all over India expect to get some relief after its chairman Syed Mohamed Masood and his wife were named as Swiss bank account holders by the Swiss Federal Gazette. The gazette has released names of a dozen Indians. As many as 35,000 investors in Tamil Nadu were lured by City Group's promise of 48% interest and large cash back in its investment schemes. Many even took loans and used up all savings to invest in the company. However the company folded in August 2009 and its directors absconded. The investors had filed complaints with the Tamil Nadu Economic Offences Wing, while also fighting individual class action suits in court. CML MEDIA: Faces "Kelly-Duarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Kelly-Duarte, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CML Media Corp., d/b/a Mopro, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00795083 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. CML Media is a California corporation that offers spyware-free downloads on the Web. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen B. Felahy, Esq. FELAHY TRIAL LAWYERS, APC 4000 Cover Street, Suite 100 Long Beach, CA 90808 Facsimile: (562) 499-2124 Telephone: (562) 499-2121 E-mail: AFelahy@Felahylaw.com CORE LABORATORIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Nelson Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Core Laboratories LP d/b/a Protechnics, Core Laboratories Interests Holdings, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00093 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants specialize in providing an array of petroleum services to various oilfield installations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Kaczmarczyk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Kaczmarczyk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00552- RJA (W.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York State Wage and Hour Law. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates approximately 44 retail stores in the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: charles@hgrlawyers.com marc@hgrlawyers.com - and - David A. Roth, Esq. ROTH & ROTH, LLP 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: droth@hgrlawyers.com - and - Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Britschgi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Britschgi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DirecTv, LLC and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. RG15774968 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Installers the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked. DirecTV, LLC provides direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video programming distribution services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcvin E. Krakow, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com DNJ INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucio Barrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-09701 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly classify its truck drivers as employees, and as a result, fails to compensate those drivers in accordance with the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC owns and operates drayage services facilities in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763M6880 E-mail: info@caffarelli.com E*TRADE FINANCIAL: SPDR S&P Receives Class Action Payment --------------------------------------------------------- The SPDR(R) S&P Capital Markets ETF said the Fund received payment as an authorized claimant from a class action settlement related to E*TRADE Financial Corporation. When the Fund calculates its net asset value ("NAV") per share on June 8, 2015, it is estimated that the Fund's NAV will be impacted in the amounts stated below based on shares outstanding as of June 4, 2015. SSGA manages approximately $429.4 billion in SPDR ETF assets worldwide (as of April 30, 2015) and is one of the largest ETF providers in the US and globally. About State Street Global Advisors For nearly four decades, State Street Global Advisors has been committed to helping our clients, and those who rely on them, achieve financial security. We partner with many of the world's largest, most sophisticated investors and financial intermediaries to help them reach their goals through a rigorous, research-driven investment process spanning both indexing and active disciplines. With trillions* in assets, our scale and global reach offer clients unrivaled access to markets, geographies and asset classes, and allow us to deliver thoughtful insights and innovative solutions. State Street Global Advisors is the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. *Assets under management were $2.4 trillion as of March 31, 2015. This AUM total includes the assets of the SPDR Gold Trust (approx. $28 billion as of March 31, 2015), for which State Street Global Markets, LLC, an affiliate of State Street Global Advisors, serves as the marketing agent. Please note that AUM totals are unaudited. SPDR ETFs are a comprehensive family spanning an array of international and domestic asset classes. SPDR ETFs provide professional investors with the flexibility to select investments that are precisely aligned to their investment strategy. Recognized as the industry pioneer, State Street -- in partnership with the American Stock Exchange -- created the first ETF in 1993 (SPDR S&P 500 - Ticker SPY). Since then, we've sustained our place as an industry innovator through the introduction of many ground- breaking products, including first-to-market successes with gold, international real estate, international fixed income and sector ETFs. SPDR ETFs are managed or marketed by SSGA or SSGA Funds Management, Inc., a registered investment adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of State Street Bank and Trust Company. ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk and will fluctuate in market value. Frequent trading of ETFs could significantly increase commissions and other costs such that they may offset any savings from low fees or costs. Standard & Poor's, S&P and SPDR are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC (S&P); Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI) and sublicensed for certain purposes by State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation's financial products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and third party licensors and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do they have any liability in relation thereto, including for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index. Distributor: State Street Global Markets, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, a wholly owned subsidiary of State Street Corporation. ALPS Portfolio Solutions Distributors, Inc., a registered broker- dealer, is distributor for Select Sector SPDRs and ALPS Distributors, Inc. is distributor for SPDR S&P 500, MidCap SPDRs and SPDR DJIA, all unit investment trusts. References to State Street may include State Street Corporation and its affiliates. Certain State Street affiliates provide services and receive fees from the SPDR ETFs. Before investing, consider the funds' investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. To obtain a prospectus which contains this and other information call 1-866-787-2257 or visit www.spdrs.com EDISON INT'L: "Tibble" Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Plan Execs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Steyer, writing for P&I Online, reported that attorneys who represent defined contribution plan sponsors and DC plan consultants say the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Tibble et al. vs. Edison International has created uncertainty for plan executives. While the court's unanimous ruling reaffirmed and clarified what plan executives should have been doing all along -- continuously monitoring investments -- it didn't establish guidelines for that monitoring, they said. The court sent the case back to a federal appeals court to outline standards. "We express no view on the scope of (Edison's) fiduciary duty in this case," the court said in its 9-0 decision issued May 18. "The court is continuing to make it unclear what fiduciaries are supposed to do," said Jeremy Blumenfeld, a Philadelphia-based partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. "If the fiduciaries had specific guidelines, they would do it." Other attorneys said the decision highlights that fiduciaries' inconsistent monitoring and inadequate record keeping are a prescription for trouble. "Amateur hour is over," said James P. McElligott Jr., a Richmond, Va.-based partner for McGuire Woods LLP. "The court is saying you need to look at investments in a serious way," he added. "Investment committees need to know their investments. You need some strong, competent independent advisers. You need documentation." Mr. McElligott said the need for action is heightened by the ruling that fiduciaries' responsibilities aren't restricted by an ERISA six-year statute of limitations for suits alleging breach of fiduciary duty. "You can't set it and forget it," he said. The Supreme Court has told fiduciaries "to take seriously their responsibility in time and in effort," said Nancy Ross, a Chicago- based partner for Mayer Brown LLP. "For some plans, that's a wake- up call. For others, it's a reminder." Ms. Ross said the decision could encourage more fiduciary-breach lawsuits. "The plaintiffs' bar could see this as a back-door entry to challenge plan operations," she said. Although the Tibble case focused on fees for plan options, "prudent fiduciaries will look at the instructions by the court as meaning more than a duty to monitor investments," she said. "Smaller plans will be the most affected. They may have to start from scratch to make sure they document their (monitoring) process. Larger plans will have to fine-tune the process." Higher damages Mr. Blumenfeld said he wasn't sure whether the court's ruling would lead to more lawsuits, but noted it could lead to higher damages assessed through verdicts or settlements and higher plan costs due to litigation expenses. The Tibble case started in August 2007 with a class-action lawsuit filed by 401(k) participants against Edison International Inc., Rosemead, Calif., a utility holding company, and others associated with the Edison plan. The suit was filed in the U.S District Court for the Central District of California. The participants alleged plan executives violated their fiduciary duty when they chose retail shares for mutual funds over lower- priced shares for the same investments. They challenged six mutual funds -- three that were added to the plan lineup in 1999 and three that were offered beginning in 2002. The District Court in 2009 dismissed the claim for the 1999 funds, citing the six-year statute of limitations for filing a fiduciary breach claim that is part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. However, after a trial, the court in 2010 ruled in favor of the participants regarding the 2002 mutual funds, awarding them $370,732 in damages. The participants appealed the ruling on the 1999 funds, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in 2013. Participants then petitioned the Supreme Court. The appeals court mistakenly applied the six-year statute of limitations to the three 1999 funds "based solely on the initial selection of the three funds without considering the contours of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty," said the opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer. "The 9th Circuit did not recognize that under trust law, a fiduciary is required to conduct a regular review of its investment with the nature and timing of the review contingent on the circumstances." The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's ruling and sent the case back "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," wrote Mr. Breyer. Non-binding in other circuits If the appeals court offers guidelines, its decision will affect only ERISA-covered DC plans in the 9th Circuit's area -- California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Arizona. "It won't be binding on other circuits," said Ms. Ross of Mayer Brown, "but it will be persuasive in other circuits." If the appeals court sends the case back to the District Court where the Edison ruling originated, ERISA attorneys said litigation might go on for several more years unless there is a settlement. Attorneys and consultants said fiduciaries shouldn't wait for follow-up litigation, maintaining that an ounce of fiduciary prevention can protect against a pound of litigation. "Fiduciaries will be more cautious about minutes of fiduciary meetings to reflect both thorough deliberation and their decisions," said Ms. Ross. "Know your plan documents -- and read them periodically," added Mr. McElligott of McGuireWoods. "My initial takeaway is that the court confirmed a process that we have been doing with clients for a long time," said Lori Lucas, the Chicago-based executive vice president and defined contribution practice leader for Callan Associates Inc., referring to her firm's practices. Monitoring covers regular appraisals of fees, fund performance, risk, style drift and "organizational stability" -- whether fund managers leave -- on a quarterly basis, she said. "Our answer to the court's decision is (for plan executives) to conduct a plan fee review with a request for information from comparable vendors every few years to benchmark fees," she said. They should perform "interim benchmarking annually, or if there is a major plan change." Ms. Lucas conceded that lower-court interpretations of the Supreme Court ruling remain a wild card for plan management. "The 9th Circuit still needs to say what is adequate," she said. "But it's hard to say things will be resolved even when the 9th Circuit makes its ruling. This area remains unsettled." Consultants say the best defense in ERISA legal challenges is documenting the process for their decisions. "In a general sense, if fiduciaries followed the right process, courts are hesitant to second-guess them," said Michael Weddell, a Southfield, Mich.- based senior consultant for Towers Watson & Co.'s benefits advisory and compliance unit. Michael Webb, New York-based vice president, retirement, at Cammack Retirement Group, an investment and employee benefits consulting firm, emphasized the need for keeping good records. "We say (to clients) keep doing what you are doing -- monitor investments, go for the least expensive asset classes and get rid of poor-performing funds," said Mr. Webb. N EL SENORIAL: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gwendolyne Rodriguez Gomez and Reina Sofia Alva, and other similarly situated employees v. El Senorial, Corp. and Edgar A. Parra, Case No. 2015-014166-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com FORSTER GARBUS: Faces "Antista" Suit Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Antista, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Forster, Garbus & Garbus, LVNV Funding LLC, and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04338 (D.N.J., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com GOWAITER BUSINESS: Faces "Schoolcraft" Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Jarrod Schoolcraft, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GoWaiter Business Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02270-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Simanovsky, Esq. ALEX SIMANOVSKY & ASSOCIATES, LLC Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (678) 781-1012 E-mail: alex@a-s-law.com - and - Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (404) 365-4460 Facsimile: (855) 415-2480 E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Arbolaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Arbolaez and Kathy Calcasola, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Guardian Home Health, Inc. and Elaine Deciutiis, Case No. 8:15-cv-01473 (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Guardian Home Health, Inc. owns and operates a home health care facility in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Melton, Esq. Jay P. Lechner, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC 11020 Northcliffe Blvd Spring Hill, FL 34608 Telephone: (352) 683-2016 Facsimile: (352) 556-4839 E-mail: jason@thefllawfirm.com lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Unauthorized Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------- Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that civil rights lawyers sued Hertz Corp. and its background-checks contractor on, accusing them of blindsiding job applicants by looking up their criminal records and withholding or withdrawing job offers without giving them a chance to challenge the reports. A federal law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, requires private employers to get applicants' written consent before checking their criminal records or credit history, said lawyers in the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. When a report contains damaging information, the lawyers said, the employer must give the applicant a copy and a chance to correct any errors. "A significant percentage of these (criminal background) reports . . . contain incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or improper records that can erroneously disqualify a job applicant," the suit said. It said Hertz, the car rental giant, routinely rejects job applicants based on background reports that are never shown to the applicant. The company's practice "deprives job-seekers of their rights," said plaintiffs' lawyer Katrina Eiland. She was joined in the case by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, which has argued that employers' use of criminal records disproportionately harms poor and minority job applicants. Some states have started to prohibit employers from asking job applicants whether they have criminal records. California enacted such a ban for state and local government jobs, and San Francisco later expanded that ban to private companies with more than 20 employees. Both laws allow employers to conduct full background checks after an initial interview, subject to the restrictions in federal law. Hertz, which owns the Dollar, Thrifty and Firefly car rental companies, operates at more than 1,700 U.S. airports. Hertz declined to comment, saying it had not yet reviewed the lawsuit. The suit was filed as a proposed nationwide class action by Peter Lee of Richmond. Lawyers said Lee was working for another car- rental company at San Francisco International Airport when he was recruited by the Dollar/Thrifty rental outlet at the airport in May 2014. He was interviewed, passed a drug test, got a job offer and sent his employer a notice that he was leaving, the suit said. Six days before he was scheduled to start, Hertz said it was withdrawing the offer because of information uncovered in Lee's criminal background check. Lee had been charged in June 2012 with possessing drugs for sale, charges that were still pending in 2014, the suit said. It did not say how the charges were ultimately resolved, and Lee's lawyers declined to elaborate. Neither Hertz nor its contractor, Sterling Infosystems, had notified Lee of the background check, obtained his consent or given him a chance to see and comment on his records, as the law requires, the suit said. Eiland, his lawyer, said Lee was able to keep his job with his previous employer. She also said the practices aren't unique to Hertz. "We understand that companies frequently violate the (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and often outsource certain obligations to companies like Sterling," Eiland said. HEWLETT PACKARD: Falsely Marketed Printers, "Wolf" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Hewlett Packard Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-01221 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased HP printers that were falsely marketed by the Defendant to have "HP Smart Install," a feature designed to allow for the easy software installation of the printers via the internet. The HP Smart Install feature on the products at issue is disabled and unavailable for use on the printers that the Defendant advertises them to have. Hewlett Packard Company is a Delaware corporation and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of computers and related equipment and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: $100-Mil. Deal for Autonomy-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Escritt and Toby Sterling, writing for Reuters, reported that Hewlett-Packard agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class- action lawsuit stemming from its ill-fated 2011 acquisition of British software company Autonomy. Dutch pension fund PGGM was the lead plaintiff in the suit, which has been running since 2012. The cash payment will be paid into a settlement fund to compensate affected shareholders. HP acquired Autonomy for $11 billion but was forced to write down its value by $8.8 billion only a year later. First Autonomy's revenues declined and then in November 2012 HP said it had uncovered accounting irregularities at the firm. Autonomy's managers denied that, but HP's stock plunged to 10-year lows. PGGM lawyer Femke Hendriks said that HP's management had harmed investors by unduly playing up prospects for the acquisition. The pension fund decided to pursue the suit against the U.S. tech company because it wanted to send a signal to companies that they cannot mislead investors with impunity, Hendriks said. "Sooner or later you'll face the bill," she said. HP did not admit any wrongdoing. "While HP believes the action has no merit, it is desirable and beneficial to HP and its shareholders to resolve . . . the case, as further litigation would be burdensome and protracted," the company said in a statement. Asked why she thought HP's then-management would have had any interest in misleading shareholders, Hendriks said that "remains a difficult question to answer." She said PGGM believes management had been so determined to get into a growing software business quickly that it failed to ensure auditors vetted the company's books properly before striking a deal. IGNITE RESTAURANT: Joe's Crab IPO Suit Ends in $1.8MM Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, reported that a Texas federal judge gave final approval on to a $1.8 million settlement in a putative class action accusing Ignite Restaurant Group Inc., which owns restaurant chains including Joe's Crab Shack and Romano's Macaroni Grill, of botching its $80 million initial public offering in 2012. U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore issued an order approving the settlement agreement, which the two sides reached in January, finding it fair and reasonable. "The court hereby approves the settlement set forth in the stipulation and finds that said settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class," Judge Gilmore wrote. The judge also granted the plaintiffs' lead counsel $600,000 for attorneys' fees and $304,000 for expenses. Considering that the case dragged on for nearly three years, the judge wrote these amounts were fair. "The court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair and reasonable in light of the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the case, the skill required to prosecute the case, the experience and ability of the attorneys, awards in similar cases, the contingent nature of the representation, and the result obtained for the class," the order says. A preliminary approval for the agreement was issued in February. In a memorandum supporting the settlement approval filed in March, attorneys for the putative class said continuing the case would only delay the class members' payments. "The settlement is not only a fair, reasonable and adequate result for the settlement class, as is legally required, but lead plaintiffs and lead counsel believe that it is an excellent result under the circumstances of this case," the memorandum says. An attorney for the shareholders called the settlement a good deal after its final approval from the court. "We are pleased with the Court's ruling," Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm PA told Law360. "The settlement is a good result for shareholders given the difficult and novel issues raised in this case, the formidable opposition from defense counsel throughout the case, and the fact the settlement exceeds industry averages." The case dates back to 2012, when Ignite shareholder Chaz Campton filed suit on behalf of himself and others who purchased stock in Ignite's May 2012 IPO. That first complaint was actually dismissed in February 2013, but the plaintiffs filed a second amendment complaint in September of that year. The IPO sold almost 5.8 million shares at $14 a share. But following an internal assessment of its lease accounting, Ignite realized it had become clear that errors needed to be corrected, according to court documents, and further review showed that the company needed to restate its previously issued financial statements for every year going back to 2009. The lease accounting errors dated back to the company's 2006 beginnings, and the adjustments reflected noncash charges primarily relating to deferred rent. Following those revisions, Ignite stock plummeted, leading to the suit being filed on behalf of all Ignite shareholders. Ignite operates 313 restaurants in 36 states and franchises an additional 26. It reported $837 million in revenue and a loss of $53.5 million, according to its annual filings. Its filing also says that $1.6 million of the settlement cost will be covered by insurance. Attorneys for Ignite did not respond to requests for comment. The proposed class is represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Phillip Kim and Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm PA and R. Dean Gresham of PayneMitchell Law Group LLP. The defendants are represented by Shireen A. Barday, Mitra Hormozi and Yosef J. Riemer of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Scott Lemond of Lemond & Lemond LLC, and Stephen B. Crain and Tony L. Visage of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. The case is Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group Inc. et al., case number 4:12-cv-02196, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Saname" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge L. Saname and all others similarly situated v. Indeco Finishes of Florida, LLC, Oswaldo A. Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv- 22348-UU (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing business throughout Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM INTER-CONTINENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracey Leschinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation and Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01470-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited telemarking calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. The Defendants own and operate an international hotel chain. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq. CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA 2254 Riverside Ave Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 374-0111 Facsimile: (904) 374-0113 E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. William Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP Suite 1120-Galleria Tower I 2700 Post Oak Blvd Houston, TX 77056-5767 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Illegally Installs Recording Devices, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Allen, et al. v. Jerry Brown, Brian Hawkins, Johnson Controls, Inc., and Robert A. McDonald as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 1:15-cv-00969 (D.D.C., June 22, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants unlawful practice of installing video and audio recording devices through the workplace of the Plaintiffs without any legal justification. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a Milwaukee corporation who installs audio and video listening devices for U.S. Federal agencies. Robert A. McDonald is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Brian Hawkins is the director of the medical center located at 50 Irving Street NW, Washington D.C. 20422. Jerry Brown is the Chief of Police Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken C. Gauvey, Esq. THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC 4334 Farragut Street, Suite I Hyattsville, MD 20781 Telephone: (410) 346-2377 Facsimile: (866) 487-1154 E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com LIONSGATE: Moves To Settle 'Wendy Williams Show' Intern Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reported that six months ago, Lionsgate wanted the potential class action filed by a former intern on The Wendy Williams Show tossed out of court. Now it wants to go large and pay to make the whole thing go away. To that end, the studio's attorneys are filing paperwork in New York federal court stating that they have reached a settlement in the case with Anthony Tart's lawyers at Virginia & Ambinder, I've learned. While there is no dollar figure attached to the proposed agreement, sources tell me is it in the $1 million ballpark. And the ballpark itself has gotten a bit bigger: As part of the resolution to Tart's October 1, 2014 complaint seeking a jury trial, Lionsgate and its subsidiary, Wendy Williams Show producers Debmar-Mercury, are taking the rare Hollywood step of expanding the class action as they hope to have it shut it down. Settlement deal won't just address other former TWWS interns who say they were made to work like full-time employees on the syndicated daytime talker, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act plus New York's Minimum Wage Law and Wage Theft Law. Nope, to truly settle this and to seek to head off further similar lawsuits, Lionsgate is now including all former interns of the studio and its subsidiary in the action -- which is around 1,800 individuals. Worked out a couple of weeks ago, the proposal now goes before Judge Alison Nathan for preliminary and eventually final approval later this summer, if class members raise no strenuous objections. As has been the case with past settlements, class members are looking at getting around $550 each. That's before the lawyers get their usually not insignificant piece of the rock and if all eligible class members participate, which could bring that $1 million figure down. This mainly done deal from Lionsgate follows the trend in Tinseltown of late to make an agreement on these actions instead of the risks of both sides going deeper down the labor-law mineshaft. In both NBC Universal and Viacom have broke settlement bread with ex-interns and taken out their checkbooks. In the latter case, Virginia & Ambinder was one of the firms set to get some of the $900,000 payday from a $7.2 million agreement. A holdout until last winter, Lionsgate was the last studio to shift to paying their interns after a 2013 ruling in the game-changing Black Swan case against Fox Searchlight sent litigation chills through the industry. Now it thinks it has found a way to leave the whole mess behind. Lionsgate and Debmar-Mercury are represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP lawyers Christopher Parlo, Sam Shaulson and Stephanie Rosel Ross. Alison Genova, LaDonna Lusher and Lloyd Ambinder of NYC's Virgina & Ambinder LLP are handling things for Tart and the class members, as are Jeffrey Brown and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC. LU SIMON BUILDERS: Faces Possible Class Suit by Bldg. Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Gillet, writing for Heraldsun, reported that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade raised concern about the incident warning it had national implications over cheap cladding. The organization launched an investigation into the fire at the Lacrosse building and found the external cladding used by the builders, L U Simon, breached combustibility requirements for high-rise towers. Now 170 new high-rises in Melbourne's CBD are being looked into by the Victorian Building Authority. In an email to staff, the MFB's acting chief executive Paul Stacchino described the incident as extremely rare and challenging for the organisation. "MFB's most experienced firefighters had never personally encountered such a fire," he wrote. "This is a fire that has the potential to be repeated. Fire and emergency services need to gain as much knowledge as possible to handle future incidents." He said while this was the first fire of its type in Australia, it was not an isolated incident. "On 21 February 2015 a fire occurred in Dubai with similar rate and vertical travel of fire spread, impact on operations and evacuation of residents. This fire had external cladding of a similar nature to the type used on the Lacrosse building." In its request, the MFB has asked that an inquiry also look into the role of the Victorian Building Authority in regards to regulating the industry. CSIRO tests found the cladding, called Alucobest, failed to prevent the spread of the Docklands fire as required under the Building Code. More than 100 owners and residents of the Lacrosse high-rise have contacted law firm Slater & Gordon regarding a potential class action -- an issue which poses problems for builders across Australia. The fast-moving blaze ravaged their 23-storey building and forced them to flee to Etihad Stadium. The Victorian Building Authority's Director Technical and Regulations Jarrod Edwards said the MFB's request that the Coroner investigate an incident even though no fatality had occurred was not unprecedented or unusual. He said the VBA supported the referral to the Coroner to investigate whether the national and state regulatory frameworks ensured that risks were adequately addressed. "The VBA will continue to work together with the MFB on this issue," Mr Edwards said. A lit cigarette was identified as the cause of the November 25 fire. The coroner has been contacted for comment. LVNV FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04791-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendants false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection practices promulgated throughout California. LVNV Funding LLC is engaged in the business of purchasing charged- off consumer debts for collection purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Murata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05606 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company which owns and operates steakhouse restaurants throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine P. Sons, Esq. James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removed "Pitter" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Nadine Pitter and Jasmine Savage, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1505045719, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia to the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15- cv-03497-CDJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Derose, Es. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com The Defendant is represented by: Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5077 E-mail: sbouchard@morganlewis.com MERCK & CO: Won't Disclose Mumps Vaccine Efficacy, Scientists Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Papple, writing for Inquitr, reported that mumps vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc. is accused in a court filing of refusing to respond to a discovery request asking for the efficacy of the mumps vaccine as a percentage. Two of Merck's former scientists, now whistleblowers, accuse Merck of deliberately falsifying tests in order to make the mumps component of its MMRII vaccine appear more effective than it actually is. The scientists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, are represented by attorneys at Constantine Cannon, and those attorneys have now "asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel Merck to respond to their discovery request," according to Reuters. They say that Merck refuses to answer the question and gives the excuse that it cannot run a new clinical trial in order to be able to state the efficacy in a different way. Instead, the company is using a "cut- and-paste" method of disclosure, repeating the efficacy results in the exact same way the data was depicted a half century ago. "Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately represented on the product's label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is," the letter to the U.S. Magistrate stated. The whistleblowers' lawsuit was filed in 2010 and asserted that Merck deliberately skewed the efficacy tests by actually adding animal antibodies to the blood samples that were to be tested. The scientists assert that, because of this falsification, Merck has been able to declare that the mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective and in doing so, keep any competing vaccine manufacturers away from the market. That claim led to an antitrust class action against Merck by purchasers of the mumps vaccine. Both lawsuits are reportedly coordinated now before U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones and Magistrate Judge Sitarski. While Merck asserts the efficacy of the mumps vaccine, the public has watched as the NHL battled a massive mumps outbreak. Matt McCarthy, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical Center, claimed, at the time, that the problem with the NHL was that the players had gone too long since their last MMR vaccination. Once believed to be a one-time jab, the MMR schedule eventually was changed to a two-dose schedule when evidence of waning-immunity became transparent. McCarthy explained in an editorial article at the time. "Throwing a wrench into all of this is that some players with the disease recently did receive a booster. The Penguins claim Crosby was vaccinated against mumps in February; he had antibodies in his system, just not enough. And that's what makes this so challenging for the NHL (or any concentrated workplace). There isn't a simple blood test to confirm with 100 percent certainty that a hockey player (or any person) is truly immune to mumps. That's because the optimal level of antibody to protect from the virus is unknown. NHL teams assumed players were immune when, in fact, they were not." Now, Canada's public health officials are reporting that in Guelph, Ontario, all students from the two high schools involved in a very recent mumps outbreak had been vaccinated according to the schedule, and it's unknown where the cases of mumps originated from. "There have been six laboratory-confirmed cases of mumps in students that attend Bishop MacDonnell and Our Lady of Lourdes High Schools in Guelph. In all cases the students had received the recommended two doses of the MMR vaccine." "It is possible that there are a few individuals who either did not develop immunity to disease, or that immunity has declined over time," Dr. Nicole Mercer said, but news of the whistleblowers' lawsuit raises big questions from the public noticing a pattern. METALICO INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Total Merchant Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles J. Morales and Cinda C. Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metalico, Inc., et al., Case No. 11187 (Del. Ch., June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Metalico, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Metalico by Total Merchant Limited for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Metalico, Inc. is a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal processor operating in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Mississippi. Total Merchant Limited is a recycler and producer of aluminum and aluminum alloys and a prominent Asian scrap metal recycler with facilities in China and Malaysia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - J. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com mfortunato@kmllp.com METALICO INC: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Merger with Total Merchant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Radovan Z. Pinto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Metalico, Inc., et al., Case No. 11183-VCL (Del. Ch., June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Metalico, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Metalico by Total Merchant Limited for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Metalico, Inc. is a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal processor operating in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Mississippi. Total Merchant Limited is a recycler and producer of aluminum and aluminum alloys and a prominent Asian scrap metal recycler with facilities in China and Malaysia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: Kim.Miller@ksfcounsel.com - and - Michael J. Palestina KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Deal in Homeless Class Suit Amended ---------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Hanks and David Smiley, writing for Miami Herald, reported that David Abraham remembers a life so low that even spending the night in a homeless shelter was a lucky break out of reach. So he was grateful to sleep on a mat outside. "It's difficult," Abraham said, recalling his time in a gated Camillus House courtyard on a prison-issue mat with dozens of other destitute men and women. "But it's better than sleeping on the streets." Ron Book, head of Miami-Dade's homeless board, sees it differently. The longtime leader of the county's homeless efforts sees the mat program at Camillus undermining a proven strategy of drawing a sharp line between street life and the stability that comes with checking into a shelter. From a shelter, the hope is to move a homeless person into an apartment of their own with social services, which advocates say is the only reliable way of removing someone from the streets permanently. "Anything that makes it easier for the chronic population to remain on the streets is not in our interest," said Book, one of Florida's most powerful lobbyists who also serves as volunteer chairman of Miami-Dade's Homeless Trust, which funds Camillus and other non-profits throughout the county. "I would never buy a mat with a trust dollar. Never, never, never." The question of where downtown Miami's homeless population should sleep -- and relieve themselves -- vaulted onto the national spotlight with the debut of the city's own "poop map." The city's tax-funded Downtown Development Authority used cartoon versions of feces to map 55 places where a clean-up crew said it found human waste streetside. The map accompanied a request for about $1.3 million to the Homeless Trust for portable toilets and extended funding for mats at Camillus. Homeless advocates saw it as a heartless prop, but downtown leaders said the map captured the reality of a failed housing- first strategy that left Miami with too many people sleeping on the streets. "Our chronic homeless numbers haven't changed," said Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who also serves as the DDA's chairman. "They're exactly the same." In January, Miami-Dade counted 1,007 people living on the streets, and 61 percent were found in Miami itself. The city's restaurants account for 30 cents of every dollar of a special food-and- beverage tax that funds about 35 percent of the Homeless Trust's $58 million budget. The January count found 616 people living on the streets in Miami, an 18 percent drop from the last winter peak set in 2006. That same time period saw the countywide population of street dwellers drop 45 percent. The numbers don't include people living in emergency shelters, or those enrolled in the long-term housing and support programs that make up about 60 percent of the Homeless Trust's budget. About 45 percent of the trust's revenue comes from Washington, and administrators said the federal grants require spending on the long-term programs as part of a national housing-first effort. A residence usually comes with a case worker and a range of services, from job placement to mental-health counseling to addiction support. Known as supportive housing, it's designed to break a cycle that sees many of the most troubled homeless residents drift between shelter and street. Advocates argue that pulling dollars from the under-funding housing programs to move someone from a street to an outdoors mat won't help the homeless population long-term. "The reality is that the Trust already knows how to end homelessness," said Constance Collins, president of the Lotus House shelter for women and children. "It lacks the resources to do so." Keith Russell, 68, keeps a Bible open in the bottom bunk where he sleeps at the Chapman homeless shelter in Miami. It's one of about 200 beds in a second-floor men's dormitory, and Russell recently began his second year there waiting for an apartment of his own. Homeless since his mother died in the 1990s, Russell said someone showed him the kind of tiny unit he would qualify for under the county's long-term program. "It has one bedroom," he said. "With a kitchen and a hall. And a bathroom. Everything." Russell's current bunk also represents valuable real estate in Miami-Dade's homeless system. The cafeteria provides three meals a day, and he sleeps just one floor above a suite of offices with case workers, health providers and others dedicated to assisting residents toward long-term housing. Often, that involves kick- starting entitlement or disability payments that would give someone the income needed to qualify for federal housing programs. Abraham lives at Chapman, too, and said he's been in and out of shelters since 2000. On a recent walk through Chapman's tidy courtyard, he described countless days on the phone with the county's referral system to get a slot. "It took me a long time to get here," he said. While homeless families get stipends for motel stays, Miami-Dade says it doesn't have enough money to fund shelter beds for everyone. A single man in Miami currently must wait about 10 days to get a spot in a shelter like Camillus House, according to the trust, although some shelter residents say the wait -- which involves calling a hot line every day -- can be far longer. The Homeless Trust funds about 6,500 beds each year. Of those, roughly 25 percent are dedicated to shelters. An occupancy report from 2014 showed that the system placed 6,549 individuals or families in shelter beds alone -- about 18 a day. In its latest annual report, the Trust said it processed about 11,500 individuals or families through its system in 2014. Of the nearly 3,400 who exited a shelter, about 20 percent needed emergency housing again within a year. About 4,600 lived in long- term housing. Of the 750 who left that program, only five wound up back in a shelter, according to the report. "The number of homeless people who don't want to be housed is very small," said Olga Golik, in-house counsel for the Citrus Health Network, a provider of social services and housing. "Nobody chooses to be homeless, given appropriate options." A recently amended class-action settlement with Miami requires police to offer a homeless person a place to go before an arrest on charges of public defecation, lying on a sidewalk or other "life-sustaining" acts. Packed shelters essentially tied officers' hands, but now they can offer a mat as an alternative. Julian Cato, 53, used his cane to walk into a Miami police station one recent morning to turn himself in. He was guilty of being homeless and said he wanted a mat. "It's very hard for me to be out there" on the streets, said Cato, whose 380-pound frame is knotted by gouty arthritis. His resting place that night was the pavement outside Camillus' walls, but still within its secure gate. He could go inside to watch a movie, use the restrooms, eat and stay the following day to meet with case workers, staff said. "They're in despair," said Officer James Bernat, homeless coordinator for the Miami police. "If we go away, there's nothing." Lately, Bernat says the mat program is taking in "humanitarian" referrals that have nothing to do with the police, including discharged patients from Jackson Memorial Hospital. But city funding for the mat program runs out this summer. More than 1,000 men and women have come through the program. Camillus said 60 percent stay in the system -- either by moving to a bed inside, landing in another shelter, or snagging a slot in a drug-rehab program or long-term housing. Some get jobs with Camillus cleaning the streets of downtown, for which the DDA spends about $400,000 a year. Trust executives point to federal data showing more discouraging results: Of the 488 mat participants tracked in 2015, fewer than 20 percent left for some sort of long-term program, such as supportive housing or drug rehab. About 45 percent returned to the streets, according to the report. Trust executives question why Miami doesn't take the money being spent on mats and use it to subsidize more beds. The dispute between the city and the Homeless Trust is a common rift seen in cities around the country, said Nan Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. "If you invest too much in the shelter in the front end, you don't have anything in the back end. If you have invested all in housing, then you have a lot of people in the street because there's no place to stay while you're trying to get them into housing," she said. "Everybody wants to do something about the problem. They're just kind of disagreeing about the balance of the funding." With downtown Miami receiving national coverage for soiled streets, patience for Miami-Dade's homeless strategy is under pressure. At the first trust meeting since the poop map's publication, board member Karen Mahar questioned why the Homeless Trust wasn't taking the lead on the bathroom issue -- even if the money had to come from another source. "I do think this is an issue that needs to be discussed," said Mahar, a former Camillus staffer. "People need to be able to go to the bathroom." San Francisco launched a similar program last summer. The city's Public Works department pays a company $100,000 yearly for each trailer holding two portable toilets, along with an attendant to stand outside. The city has four in operation in the afternoon and evening, timed to coincide with meal servings at soup kitchens. Rachel Gordon, communications director for the city's Public Works department, said the units were designed to be accommodating, with a mirror, soap and a requirement that the attendant tidy up after each use. "People now have the ability to go and do their business with dignity," she said. "They don't have to sneak between two cars and squat down." Before the toilets went into service, the city received about 25 requests a day to clean human waste from the streets. Now that's down to about 12. "We look at it as a street-cleaning function," Gordon said. In Miami, Book isn't interested. "We're in the business of providing homes," he told the Trust board on May 22. "Not poop stations." The county commission, which oversees the Trust, is scheduled to consider a resolution giving Mayor Carlos Gimenez 90 days to issue recommendations on a possible toilet program for downtown Miami. Sarnoff says it's time to force the Trust to do what it appears unwilling to do. "It's not a lack of ability," he said about the Trust's budget. "It's a lack of desire." MIKE HUCKABEE: 8th Cir. Reinstates TCPA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Eighth Circuit has revived a class action claiming presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was part of a group that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ron and Dorit Golan filed the class action in 2012 after receiving two unsolicited, recorded messages on their home phone in May, stating: "Liberty. This is a public survey call. We may call back later." Had the Golans answered, they would have heard a recorded message from Huckabee conducting an anti-Hollywood survey that asked how the person felt about "traditional American values." The Golans, who were among the 4 million people who received the call, claimed the survey was a guise promoting the movie, "The Last Ounce of Courage." They claimed the movie promoters and Huckabee violated the TCPA by placing robo calls, and sought certification of a subclass who were on the Missouri do-not-call list, but still received calls. The 2012 movie centers on a man named Bob Revere who feels the government and a liberal group are attacking his freedom of religion. A federal court dismissed the Golans' claims in 2014, finding they did not demonstrate sufficient injury to give them standing under a law designed to curb robo calls. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court reversed the decision. Judge Diana E. Murphy wrote: "Although the campaign appeared to survey whether recipients had 'traditional American values,'" movie promoters were "more concerned with getting viewers to see 'Last Ounce of Courage' than gathering information about them." The Eighth Circuit also reversed the ruling that the Golans were not adequate class representatives because they didn't hear the entire survey. "Because the purpose of the calls is the critical issue in this case, the Golans were not subject to a unique defense," Murphy wrote. "Nor did they suffer a different injury than class members who heard the entire message. What matters for all class members, including the Golans, is that each call was initiated for the purpose of promoting 'Last Ounce of Courage.'" Whether Huckabee could be held vicariously liable for the calls was left for the district court to consider. Judges Bobby E. Shepherd and Timothy L. Brooks concurred. Huckabee, a former two-term governor of Arkansas, is seeking the Republican nomination for president. MOGU SUSHI: Sued in N.Y. Over Corporate Asset Misappropriation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ka Kei Fan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lai Yin Leung and Mogu Sushi Inc., Case No. 706507/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 22, 2015), is a shareholders' action for damages as a result of the Defendants' misappropriation and conversion of corporate assets and waste. The Defendants own and operate an eat-in, take-out restaurant located at 133-22 39th Avenue, Flushing, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Sternick, Esq. MARK C. STERNICK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11C Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (917) 854-4902 E-mail: mcs.ny.law@gmail.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Opposes Concussion Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Fox Sports reported that the lead plaintiff in a concussion lawsuit against the NCAA opposes a proposed settlement in the case. In a statement released through the National College Players Association, former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington said the agreement is unacceptable and that he never approved the settlement proposal being considered by U.S. District Judge John Lee in Chicago. Arrington said the first time he learned about the deal was through the media. "I feel that I have been misinformed and the preliminary settlement doesn't address the reasons I filed the lawsuit in the first place," Arrington said. "I would like the judge to reject the preliminary settlement. I plan to secure new legal representation to continue this fight to protect future players in NCAA sports." An initial settlement plan was rejected by Lee in December, but has been reworked. The agreement includes $70 million the NCAA has pledged to set aside to test current and former athletes for signs of brain injury. Joseph Siprut, co-lead counsel in the class action lawsuit, said he remains optimistic the court will approve the settlement. "I'm disappointed that one of the class representatives has decided to withdraw support for our settlement, having apparently adopted some of the misguided and inaccurate views of the settlement expressed in corners of the media and legal filings by other third-parties," Siprut said in a statement. "Over 20 current class representative plaintiffs remain wholly supportive of the settlement, which also has the full support of two retired federal judges who helped us structure the deal." The National College Players Association is an advocacy group for college athletes led by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma. Huma said the settlement does not provide what is needed by former and future athletes because it does not mandate rules to help minimize traumatic brain injury and does not provide players suffering from brain damage direct financial support. Even though the NCAA will be shielded from class-action lawsuits in exchange for the medical testing and other provisions of the deal, current and former athletes would still be able to sue their college or the NCAA as individuals. The NCAA-funded test could help give them medical grounds for filing just such suits. Arrington said he endured five concussions while playing and the lingering effects, including seizures, have left him unable to secure employment. NATIONAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Portillo, Rafael Suarez, Martin Duran, German Bencosme, Edin Vargas, Luis A. Hernandez, Josue Paz, and Alavaro Castaneda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Freight, Inc. and NFI Interactive Logistics, Inc., Case No. L-002396-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers proper wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Law. The Defendants are in the business of providing of transportation, logistics and distribution services with its corporate headquarters located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq. Shan on J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 191 03 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: akoropey@bm.net scarson@bm.net jhberger@bm.net - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com TFowler@llrlaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Stricklen" Suit to New Jersey Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Toshiba Stricklen, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. MID-L03010-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 04168-SDW-SCM to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Deepa J. Zavatsky, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 136 Main Street, Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 514-5963 E-mail: dzavatsky@reedsmith.com NESTLE PURINA: Class Complaint Over Beneful Dog Food Amended ------------------------------------------------------------ An amended class action complaint (Case No. C-15-0569 EMC) was filed on June 8 against Nestle Purina PetCare Company on behalf of consumers who purchased Beneful brand dog food and had pets suffer from internal organ distress, injury, or failure and death. The complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful contains substances that are toxic to animals, including Industrial Grade Glycols (IGG), lead, arsenic and mycotoxins. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorizes Pharmaceutical Grade Propylene Glycol as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for ingestion; however, the FDA prohibits the use of IGG in food products due to concerns over contamination and impurities in the manufacturing process. In addition, the Association for Truth in Pet Food conducted independent testing of Beneful Original dog food and found that it contained mycotoxins, toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains, which are a principal ingredient in the dog food. The amended complaint adds 26 more dog owners from across the country who allege Beneful caused their pet's injuries and, in some cases, deaths. The class action now includes plaintiffs in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. The suit also alleges Purina has been contacting injured consumers soon after they post on social media about their dogs getting sick or the dangers of Beneful. Plaintiffs claim that Purina offers some consumers a settlement that requires them to sign an agreement prohibiting any conversations about the settlement or their experiences with Purina. "Despite Purina's aggressive defense of its product, the company is paying pet owners' claims and demanding secrecy. 'Why?' is a question Purina should answer," said Jeff Cereghino, one of the attorneys involved in the class action. The products named in the complaint include Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Incredibites, Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies, Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta, Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance and Purina Beneful Playful Life. Symptoms of those affected include stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating and kidney failure, sometimes resulting in death. In addition, the suit accuses Purina of negligence, misrepresentation, product liability and unfair business practices. The original complaint, Lucido v. Nestle Purina, was filed on February 5, 2015. The law firm may be reached at: Jeff Cereghino, Esq. Michael Ram, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI Tel: 415.433.4949 Email: jbc@rocklawcal.com mram@rocklawcal.com NEW ALLIANCE BANK: 2nd Circ. Ruling Further Splits Circuits ----------------------------------------------------------- H. Scott and Alan D. Wingfield of Troutman Sanders, in an article for Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor, said that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's May 18 announcement that it may decide whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment for complete relief moots potential class claims, the Second Circuit issued an amended ruling on May 21 that partially answered that question in the negative, further compounding a split among the federal circuit courts of appeal. The Second Circuit, in Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, No. 14-1389, held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment that provides complete relief does not, by itself, moot the claims of the named plaintiff. Instead, the named plaintiff's claims become moot for purposes of Article III's case or controversy requirement when the court enters judgment in the named plaintiff's favor in accordance with the offer. In other words, it held that only an accepted offer with a judgment against the defendants will moot claims under Rule 68. The Second Circuit court noted that the other circuits also go in different directions on the issue with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits aligning with the Second, and the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and Federal Circuits saying that an offer of complete relief renders an individual's case moot whether or not judgment is entered against the defendant. Under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant can settle a case by offering complete relief of the plaintiff's claims until up to two weeks before trial. If the plaintiff accepts the offer, judgment is entered in the plaintiff's favor and the case ends. However, if the plaintiff does not accept, it is unclear whether the offer alone settles the controversy, thereby rendering the case moot. "In light of this confusion, we find it necessary to the resolution of this case to clarify and reiterate that it remains the established law of this circuit that a 'rejected settlement offer [under Rule 68], by itself, [cannot render] moot [a] case,'" Chief Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann said for the three-judge panel. The Tanasi court also ruled that district courts are not required to enter judgment in favor of the named plaintiff who refuses to accept an offer of complete relief. Instead, the court suggested that district courts have discretion to do so, noting that the purpose of Rule 68 is "to encourage settlement and avoid litigation," and that entry of judgment is appropriate if the parties so agree, or if a defendant "unconditionally surrenders" and "only the plaintiff's obstinacy or madness prevents her from accepting total victory." The Tanasi court expressly reserved the question of what happens to the putative class claims after a named plaintiff's individual claims are rendered moot. That question may soon be put to rest. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a TCPA class action that involves the issue of whether the entire case is rendered moot for purposes of Article III when the named plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief. See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted sub nom. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2015 WL 246885 (U.S. May 18, 2015) (No. 14-857). OLD NATIONAL: 7th Circ. Poised to Rule in Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason B. Hirsh, writing for Insider Counsel, reported that a data breach is an unfortunate event, but one that appears to be happening more and more often. On the heels of such data breaches, courts have been inundated with putative class action lawsuits premised upon a risk of future injury, such as identity theft. In the Northern District of Illinois federal court, however, an increasing number of courts are applying the Supreme Court's 2013 Clapper v. Amnesty, Inc. decision and dismissing data breach cases because a future injury must be "certainly impending" to confer standing and the mere increased risk of future harm from a data breach is simply too speculative to qualify as "certainly impending." Two of these rulings are now on appeal, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is now poised to determine whether standing remains an effective defense in data breach lawsuits. In 2007, in Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp., a data breach case, the 7th Circuit adopted the view that standing "can be satisfied by a threat of future harm or by an act which harms the plaintiff only by increasing the risk of future harm that the plaintiff would have otherwise faced, absent defendant's actions." Moreover, the 7th Circuit explained "[o]nce the plaintiff's allegations establish at least this level of injury, the fact that plaintiffs anticipate that some greater potential harm might follow the defendant's act does not affect the standing inquiry." Six years later, in 2013, the Supreme Court appeared to reject the standing analysis applied in Pisciotta, leading to the current debate over standing in data breach cases. In Clapper, plaintiffs were comprised of individuals whose work required them to engage in sensitive international communications with people who may be subject to surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). On the day that FISA was enacted, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the legislation was facially unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the lawsuit concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and found an "objectively reasonable likelihood" that plaintiffs' communications would be intercepted in the future and that in anticipation of this future injury, plaintiffs suffered a present injury in the form of measures taken to protect the confidentiality of their communications. The Supreme Court observed that the Article III standing requirement "is built on separation-of-powers principles [and] serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches." And, thus, the Supreme Court suggested "an especially rigorous" standing analysis "when reaching the merits would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional." The Court added "relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power" and "we have often found a lack of standing in cases" involving "actions of the political branches in the fields of intelligence gathering and foreign affairs." The Supreme Court rejected the 2nd Circuit's "objectively reasonable likelihood" standard concluding that it "is inconsistent with our requirement that 'threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.'" Because, among other things, plaintiff did not have "actual knowledge of the Government's [FISA] targeting practices," much less actual knowledge concerning whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would authorize surveillance under FISA, the Court held that plaintiff's fear of surveillance is "highly speculative" based upon a "chain of contingencies." Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs claim that they have been forced ". . . to take costly and burdensome measures to protect the confidentiality of their international communications" does not constitute a present injury. In the context of a non-imminent future injury, the Court stated that plaintiffs cannot "manufacture standing." ONTARIO: Abuse Settlement Includes $42,000 Individual Payout ------------------------------------------------------------ Debora Van Brenk, writing for Ifpress.com, reported that more than 3,000 people who suffered abuses at Ontario's developmental centres -- places meant to help them, not harm them -- will have to wait at least until August before they receive compensation. The original deadline was May but large numbers of claimants and the complexity of their cases has delayed the deadline, said lawyer Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky, which is handling the class- action settlement between survivors and the province. While some documents submitted by survivors were brief, others totalled more than 2,000 pages, Brown said. The three centres -- near Blenheim, Orillia and Smiths Falls -- were supposed to be places where children with developmental disabilities, such as Down Syndrome or cerebral palsy, would receive education, therapy and health care. Instead, many were choked, kicked, sexually assaulted, controlled with cattle prods or neglected. All three centres had closed by 2009, when the philosophy of caring for people with developmental disabilities had evolved into integrating them into their home communities. The province reached a settlement in the class-action suit that includes a maximum compensation of $42,000 for each person, depending on the kind of abuse and its duration and severity. A total of 3,568 people came forward with claims. Crawford Class Action Services is administering the claims. A few eligibility disputes are still being resolved, Brown said, while some of the more complex individual files are still being assessed. "Quality claims administration takes time and we want to make sure it's done right," he said. When each claim amount is established, all the cheques and explanatory letters will be mailed out at the same time. Claimants can't get a preview of the amount they'll receive. Nor will they be able to appeal their individual settlement amount. Those who claims are disallowed, though, will have 30 days from the time they receive their letter to appeal that decision. None of the cheques will be subject to taxes or tax claw backs. They won't result in changes to anyone's disability payments, welfare or unemployment benefits. Brown said the non-monetary details are also important parts of the settlement: A public apology from the premier, signs at the three centres, a marked cemetery at the Huronia site and placing 60,000 documents into the public record. About 300 items that had been kept in storage at Huronia were also donated to academic researchers in public policy. Brown said they included caged cribs, straitjackets, photographs and at least one teddy bear. PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Greene" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Greene, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc., Pacific Tank Solutions, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15775232 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates a full-service environmental remediation, demolition, and construction company. Pacific Tank Solutions is a factory authorized distributor and installer of Aquastore and other CST storage tanks throughout California and Northern Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Hodgkins, Esq. CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, A PROF. CORP. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (213) 529-0003 Facsimile: (310) 469-0533 E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com - and - Joseph Cho, Esq. LATRIALAW, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 8 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 806-9264 Facsimile: (844) 806-9265 E-mail: joseph.cho@latrialaw.com PARKING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Crumbaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Crumbaker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Parking Solutions, Inc., Aaron Shocket, and Robert Rees, Case No. 2:15-cv-02446-ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing parking and valet services to various locations, like airports, casinos, hotels, restaurants, and hospitals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 583-8107 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com PASCO, FL: "Meeks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Meeks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chris Nocco, in his official capacity as Pasco County Sheriff, Case No. 8:15-cv-01460-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Chris Nocco is the duly elected Sheriff of Pasco County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Owens, Esq. Miguel Bouzas, Esq. BOUZAS OWENS, P.A. 2154 Duck Slough Blvd Ste 101 Trinity, FL 34655-5073 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: greg@bouzasowens.com Miguel@bouzasowens.com PENNYVISION LLC: Faces "Joharifard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Mostafa Joharifard v. Pennyvision, LLC, Case No. 30-2015-00794747 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Pennyvision, LLC owns and operates numerous Pizza Hut franchises in Orange County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Marlin, Esq. Stephen P. O' Dell, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 Telephone: (714) 669-4900 Facsimile: (714) 669-4750 - and - Tannaz "Tawny" Mazarei, Esq. MAZAREI LAW GROUP 9110 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (714) 418-5797 Facsimile: (714) 418-5788 E-mail: tawny@mazareilaw.com PEPSI CO: Chemical Disclosure Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Andy Szal, writing for M.net, reported that a class action lawsuit alleging that PepsiCo violated California chemical disclosure standards will be allowed to proceed after a federal judge tossed out the soft drink company's effort to dismiss the case. The lawsuit, which consolidated eight separate actions into one case, argued that PepsiCo failed to disclose levels of 4- methylimidazole in Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One that exceeded the threshold under Proposition 65. California listed the chemical -- a byproduct of the caramel coloring process in certain sodas -- as a carcinogen under Prop 65 in 2011, a move that requires companies to disclose exposure levels of at least 29 micrograms per day. The class action lawsuit, which cited a 2014 Consumer Reports test of Pepsi products, accused the beverage giant of misleading consumers. Pepsi responded with a motion to dismiss the case. The filing argued that the Prop 65 threshold was not based on a single serving of soda but instead on average lifetime exposure patterns. Pepsi also said a Prop 65 label would be preempted by U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen disagreed and dismissed the motion, although he said Pepsi could challenge the plaintiffs' calculations during the trial phase of the case. "Our products are safe and in full compliance with all applicable laws," PepsiCo spokeswoman Aurora Gonzalez told Courthouse News Service. PHOENIX LIFE: Settles Bad Faith Insurance Suit for $42-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers and Settlements reported that Phoenix Life Insurance Co. will pony up $42M to settle the bad faith insurance class action lawsuit, which alleges that the insurer unfairly raised rates on premium-adjustable universal life insurance policies. Additionally, the company has also agreed to freeze its rates for five years. The Phoenix Life settlement also prevents Phoenix from challenging the validity of any class member's PAUL policy as an unlawful "life wager," which the insurer has frequently done in order to avoid paying death benefits, according to the lawsuit. The class action lawsuit was filed following an announcement by Phoenix Life that it was raising COI rates on PAUL policies in 2010 and again in 2011. The lawsuit alleged the insurer was treating life settlement investors unfairly. Unlike whole life insurance policies that require fixed monthly premium payments, PAUL policies only require premiums to cover COI charges and other expenses, allowing policyholders to minimize their investments, according to the plaintiffs. The PAUL policyholders claimed Phoenix discriminated against life settlement investors who pay their premiums on time by hiking the COI rates and did so because the company comes out ahead when policies lapse, and it's able to avoid paying death benefits. The more than 1,000 class members will be sent checks in the mail, unless they opt out of the settlement. A $25,000 incentive award has been granted for named plaintiff Martin Fleisher. The case is Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., case number 1:11-cv-08405, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Geremia" Suit Santa Barbara Oil Spill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra B. Geremia, as Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-04759 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2015), is a class action complaint for damages, restitution, contribution, injunctive relief, and any and all other relief, as proximate result of the Defendant's failure to adhere to statutory guidelines, failure to meet the requisite standard of care, and negligence which resulted in the release, disposal, and exfiltration, of petroleum and petroleum byproducts, at and near Santa Barbara County, which continues to spread, exacerbate, and contaminate previously uncontaminated areas, negatively impacting the local economy, particularly that which is reliant on tourism. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates a pipeline system, which transported crude oil, obtained from ExxonMobil's Santa Ynez fields at Las Flores Canyon to Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County. Plains Pipeline, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Plains Pipeline, L.P. is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Barry Cappello, Esq. Leila J. Noel, Esq. Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq. CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP 831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 564-2444 Facsimile: (805) 965-5950 E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com lnoel@cappellonoel.com lconlan@cappellonoel.com PUMA BIOTECH: Aug. 3 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid --------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (NYSE: PBYI) of the August 3, 2015 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against Puma Biotech and certain executives. A complaint has been filed in the Central District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Puma Biotech securities between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws during the Class Period by failing to disclose that (1) the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) filing for neratinib would be purposed toward a positive early stage breast cancer indication as opposed to the previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (2) the Company will need to submit additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which the Company does not possess; (3) the required additional studies would push the timeline for filing the NDA into at least the first quarter of 2016; and (4) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial. On December 2, 2014 Puma Biotech announced that it intends to delay its proposed timeline for filing the NDA until the first quarter of 2016. On this news, shares of Puma Biotech fell $27.33 per share, or over 12%, to close at $197.67 per share on December 3, 2014 on extremely high volume. Furthermore, according to a Bloomberg report dated May 13, 2015, Puma Biotech's breast-cancer drug neratinib provided disappointing results in its clinical trials. The rate of disease-free survival with neratinib, at 93.9 percent, was 2.3 percentage points higher than with the placebo, while investors had expected at least a 3 percent improvement. The news made Puma Biotech's shares sink 18.6% to close at a price of $170.67 on May 14, 2015, for the biggest one-day decline since June 2, 2014. Request more information now by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/PBYI. There is no cost or obligation to you. Take Action If you invested in Puma Biotech stock or options between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015 inclusive and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/PBYI. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Puma Biotech's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Antitrust Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reported that a California federal judge tossed a putative class action alleging Quest Diagnostics Inc. monopolized diagnostic services in California by paying kickbacks, colluding with insurers and acquiring competitors, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to properly allege they were injured by Quest's practices. In granting Quest's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick shot down arguments made by named plaintiff Colleen Eastman and others. "Merely alleging that Quest charged above-competitive prices, without alleging facts demonstrating that plaintiffs were injured as a result of Quest's anticompetitive conduct, is insufficient," the judge wrote in the 14-page order. "As plaintiffs have pleaded no facts from which I can conclude that they have been injured, they lack both Article III and statutory standing." Addressing the plaintiffs' antitrust claims, the judge said similar allegations in a previous suit against Quest did not pass muster and also failed in the instant suit. "Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that the alleged practices, whether independently or in combination, caused antitrust injury or foreclosed competition in a substantial share of the relevant market, the plan/out-patient market in Northern California," he wrote. However, Judge Orrick gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 20 days. The suit, filed in January, alleges that Quest induced insurance giants Blue Shield of California and Aetna Inc. to shut out Quest's competitors and threaten physicians with plan contract termination. Aetna cut a deal with Quest and terminated the in- network status of 400 of Quest's rivals across the nation, including two in Northern California, according to the complaint. Quest is also accused of offering kickbacks to health care providers through contracts that offer discounts so deep that the payments sometimes don't cover half the costs Quest incurs in the testing. The company also sometimes offers services for free, the complaint says. The suit alleges violations of the Sherman Act, state competition and business practices laws, and California's Cartwright Act in connection with Quest's 2003 acquisition of rival Unilab and 2013 combination with the Dignity Health hospital system. The complaint says these acquisitions increased Quest's market share beyond acceptable levels. In March, Quest had argued that nearly identical antitrust claims in a case filed by four pathology companies in the same court were repeatedly thrown out and that the instant suit "recycles antitrust claims that this court dismissed three separate times." Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith and Geoffrey Bentzel of Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo LLP, J. Ross Wallin and Silvia N. Ostrower, Esq. -- sostrower@graisellsworth.com -- of Grais & Ellsworth LLP, and R. Stephen Berry, Esq. -- sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- of Berry Law PLLC. Quest is represented by Richard D. Raskin, Esq. -- rraskin@sidley.com -- Allison W. Reimann, Esq. -- areimann@sidley.com -- and Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. -- rsandrock@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Colleen Eastman et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., case number 3:15-cv-00415, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. RANDY VISSER: Nissan General Manager Facing Federal Fraud Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- FOX6 WBRC reported that the general manger of Serra Nissan in Birmingham is now facing federal charges in connection with fraud allegations. Federal prosecutors charged Randy Visser with conspiracy to defraud Nissan North America. Prosecutors say Visser directed employees at the dealership to falsify sales reports submitted to the manufacturer so Serra would get incentive payments it didn't earn. The charge against Visser follows grand jury indictment of another Serra Nissan employee. According to the charges, Visser and others claimed 15 vehicle sales for Serra Nissan, causing Nissan North America to overpay the dealership more than $64,000. People who believe they may have been victimized in the fraud scheme should: (1) Report it to federal investigators/prosecutors such as the FBI, IRS, or U.S. Attorney for their area; and (2) Seek private legal counsel from a lawyer concerning your rights, including joining the class action suit. RHODE ISLAND: Judge Approves Settlement in Pension Overhaul Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Mooney, writing for Providence Journal, reported that a Rhode Island Superior Court judge rejected the appeals of scores of state workers and retirees and approved a proposed class-action settlement in the pension overhaul case. In a 68-page ruling, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter agreed with lawyers for both the state and suing groups of unions and retirees that the settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable considering the risks both sides faced if the case went to trial. "These Constitutional issues raised by pension reform legislation have been litigated in other courts at different levels around the country without a clear resolution," said the judge. "Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the complexity, expense, and likely duration of going forward on the merits of these cases weighs in favor of approving the 2015 settlement agreement. Regardless of the outcome of a long, expensive trial on the merits, what would follow is an appeal that would likewise be expensive and complex. "If lawmakers and the governor now approve the plan, it would end most of the legal challenges to the landmark 2011 pension overhaul law, which, unlike virtually anywhere else in the country, reached back and cut benefits already promised retirees. Proponents, such as former state treasurer and now Governor Raimondo, saw the cuts -- particularly the guaranteed cost-of- living raises -- as necessary in the face of burgeoning pension obligations that would otherwise bankrupt communities and eventually destroy the pension system. Considered one of the worst in the country, on a per-capita basis, the system faced a $7- billion unfunded liability with retirees outnumbering the workers who pay into it. Opponents saw the law as an unconstitutional breach of contract and wanted their day in court to prove it. But proving their case became extremely more difficult once Taft-Carter approved a state's motion to have a jury hear the case. The plaintiffs would have had to prove to that jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the state's actions were both a contractual impairment and done for reasons that did not serve a necessary and compelling public purpose. Fairness challenged The two sides seemed headed for a trial to start until Taft-Carter appointed former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams in March to serve as mediator in the case. Williams urged the retirees and state workers to accept the settlement or face years of uncertainty as the legal battle dragged on in various courts of appeal. The settlement offers some small benefit enhancements over the pension law, including a one-time 2-percent COLA on the base of each retiree's first $25,000 in benefits, and two, one-time stipends of $500 to retirees within the first year. It also holds open the chance for cost-of-living adjustments every four years instead of every five, provided certain investment levels are met, and relaxes some of the retirement age requirements. Meanwhile, it still preserves about 92 percent of the $4 billion in taxpayer savings anticipated with the 2011 law. In May, Judge Taft-Carter held a required "fairness hearing," giving people a chance to comment on the class-action settlement proposal. For five days, retirees and state workers excoriated the deal and the 2011 law as blatantly unfair and illegal. They spoke of broken promises, of lifetimes of planning turned upside down and of worries about making ends meet. They labeled the law -- and the way retirees and state workers voted on the settlement -- as unfair, noting that many didn't know about the vote or were told they couldn't vote because they weren't in good standing with their organizations. Plenty of notice Judge Taft-Carter examined many of those claims and said in her decision: "The court is satisfied that the manner of notice employed by the parties was more than adequate to reasonably reach all affected class members. "She went on: "The court finds that the individually-mailed notice, in combination with the published notice in The Providence Journal and the information posted on the [state retirement] website, was reasonably calculated to reach all affected class members. The court also notes that the underlying pension cases and the two proposed settlements have been the subject of much publicity in recent years." The judge said that while over 60,000 notices about the settlement were mailed, the court received only about 400 written objections. Despite less than 1 percent of written opposition, "the court believes that the objectors have raised a number of significant issues that have been given serious attention and consideration throughout this decision." "Many objectors" said her gag order banning lawyers from talking about the settlement had "prevented a fair and open discussion of the settlement terms prior to the approval vote." "This objection is understandable," she said, "but rests largely on a misconception of the ordinary methods used during the settlement process." Not perfect solution Judge Taft-Carter also acknowledged that many objectors thought the state and municipal defendants "overstated the financial crisis' effect on the defendants' ability to pay for the Plaintiffs' pension benefits." "Regardless of who points the finger," the judge said, "the fact remains that the crisis is here, and a solution to the problem must be implemented. "The settlement agreement "is not being offered as a perfect solution," said the judge, "nor is perfection required of it under the law." Raimondo said Judge Taft-Carter's approval of the settlement "another important step toward providing certainty for our public employees and our cities and towns." She said she would work with the Assembly to pass legislation finalizing the agreement. ROSS DRESS: Suit Over Unpaid Bag Check Time Sent to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California judge tentatively sent to individual arbitration a putative class action alleging Ross Dress for Less Inc. didn't pay workers for time spent undergoing bag checks, saying the former employees who brought the suit signed valid arbitration agreements. Former Ross employees Griselda Veloz, Jose Charles Moreno and Luis F. Rodriguez had filed class action claims and claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act alleging the clothing retailer unlawfully failed to pay them for security bag checks conducted before they left their stores. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger had earlier granted Ross' motions to compel individual arbitration of Veloz and Moreno's claims but denied arbitration as to Rodriguez. At a hearing, however, Judge Highberger said that after reading supplemental briefing provided by Ross, his tentative ruling would be to compel Rodriguez into individual arbitration as well. Judge Highberger said he had "erroneously" viewed a compensation and benefits agreement signed by Rodriguez and a Ross representative as a "completely integrated agreement" that could only be modified by both parties' signatures, and also did not contain an arbitration clause. Because an arbitration agreement later signed by Rodriguez was signed only by him, it appeared it could not modify the earlier agreement, the judge said, noting that he now realized that because the earlier agreement did not encompass every single term of Rodriguez's employment, the arbitration agreement appears to be valid. "The language in the earlier signed benefits summary does not act as some kind of bar to the later agreement," he said. ""In the absence of an actual integration clause ... I think it would be error to rely on the December 22 2010 compensation and benefits summary as preclusive of the later adhesive agreement." Veloz filed suit in June 2012 and later added Rodriguez and Moreno as class representatives in an amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Ross forced California workers to clock out for meal breaks or the end of their shifts before waiting for "loss prevention inspections" before they could leave stores, adding at least 10 minutes to their work day. These bag checks were a "term and condition of employment" and thus should have been paid, according to the complaint. The suit brought claims under California's labor laws and its unfair competition law on behalf of all California Ross hourly workers and was amended to add the PAGA claim. Under PAGA, workers can bring labor claims on behalf of the state and receive 25 percent of the recovery. In the wake of the California Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, class-action waivers in arbitration agreements were deemed enforceable in the state, but not waivers of representative PAGA claims. Businesses have continued to challenge Iskanian and argued that representative PAGA claims should be subject to waivers in arbitration agreements, but the U.S. Supreme Court in January denied CLS' bid to review the ruling and turned down Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC's similar challenge. According to Ross' briefing supporting its motion to compel arbitration, Judge Highberger can send all the plaintiffs into individual arbitration where their labor code disputes can be resolved, and the PAGA claim will be stayed to be handled in court after that arbitration is concluded. On, Judge Highberger gave the plaintiffs two weeks to file supplemental briefing to contest Ross' argument that the arbitration agreement was separate from the benefits and compensation agreement and continued the matter. The plaintiffs are represented by Norman B. Blumenthal, Kle R. Nordrehaug and Aparajit Bhowmik of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Ross is represented by Gregory D. Wolflick, Esq. -- greg@wolfsim.com -- and David B. Simpson, Esq. -- dave@wolfsim.com -- of Wolflick & Simpson. The case is Griselda Veloz et al. v. Ross Dress For Less Inc., case number BC485949, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. SINGING RIVER: Judge Names Reeves & Mestayer as Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge appointed a South Mississippi attorney as lead counsel over all of the federal lawsuits against Singing River Health System and its partners on. U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. denied motions from several other attorneys and appointed Jim Reeves, with the law firm Reeves & Mestayer, to lead the fight against SRHS and its partners for its failed pension plan. Reeves & Mestayer was the first firm to file a multi-count class action lawsuit against SRHS, its board of trustees, TransAmerica Retirement, KPMG, Chris Anderson and 13 others alleging corporate and financial fraud, breach of contract, taking clause and acting in bad faith with employees. "I'm honored by the appointment as lead counsel," said Reeves. "This is a significant milestone and will allow us to focus our efforts on an expedited resolution. We're prepared to continue the hard work necessary to see those who have invested a lifetime of work in the Singing River Hospital System are treated fairly." SIRIUS XM: Copyright Royalties Suit Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reported that fresh off handing another win to the 1960s band the Turtles by allowing a class action to go ahead against Sirius XM over copyright royalties on oldies songs, a federal judge in California has put the case on hold while the satellite radio provider seeks an appeal of that ruling. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles granted an application from Sirius XM's attorney Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers to stay the case while the company petitions the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because his order certifying a class in the lawsuit, Gutierrez said, "raises serious legal issues warranting review." SOLAZYME INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solazyme, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02938-HSG (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in Solazyme's Offering Documents. Solazyme, Inc. is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and industrial uses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Rachel A. Avan, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com ravan@labaton.com SOUTH CAROLINA: Educ. Commission Sued Over Student Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Pan, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that when 19-year-old Antonio Rojas Rodriguez received his acceptance letter from the College of Charleston this spring, he was elated. He had fallen in love with the campus during two overnight visits his junior and senior year. An aspiring entrepreneur, he planned to study business and economics so that one day he could open his own authentic Mexican restaurant. But Rojas Rodriguez, who graduated from Stratford High School in Goose Creek, may be forced to put his dreams on hold. A month after he received his acceptance letter, the college informed him he would be classified as an out-of-state student because his mother is undocumented. That means Rojas Rodriguez, who was born in Mississippi, won't be eligible for in-state tuition or state- administered academic scholarships and grants. And that means he won't be able to afford to pay for college. "I just assumed," he said. "I just thought I'd been living here for 10 years. I have a driver's license. This is home. This is my state. All my family, friends are here. I had no idea that something like this existed." Rojas Rodriguez is one of three named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit, filed in Charleston's U.S. District court, alleging that South Carolina discriminates against its college-bound students who are U.S. citizens but unable to prove their parents' legal immigration status. Filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the suit names each of the 14 board members of the Commission on Higher Education as defendants, in addition to the commission's interim executive director Julie Carullo, College of Charleston President Glenn McConnell and Trident Technical College President Mary Thornley. Although no state law explicitly precludes children who are U.S. citizens, but whose parents are undocumented from receiving in- state tuition or state-administered scholarships, dependent students are classified based on their parents' residency. As a result, public colleges and the Commission on Higher Education, which sets regulations for in-state tuition and scholarship eligibility, have adopted policies that define these students as non-residents. These policies, attorneys argue, violate their clients' rights to equal protection under the Constitution. "It essentially puts college out of reach for our clients and for other students in similar positions by doubling or in some cases, nearly tripling the cost of attendance," said Michelle Lapointe, senior staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The annual cost of tuition at the College of Charleston is $10,558 for residents and $27,548 for nonresidents. At Trident Tech, tuition for a semester during the 2014-15 academic year was $2,170 for South Carolina residents; $1,956 for residents of Charleston, Berkeley or Dorchester counties; and $3,702 for out-of-state students. McConnell declined through a spokesman to discuss any pending litigation. When asked about the suit by The Post and Courier, Commission on Higher Education chairman John Finan said he hadn't been notified about it and couldn't comment. "We are an 'open door' institution, committed to serving all of the residents of our three-county service area in every way possible," said Thornley in a statement provided to The Post and Courier. "Also, we are a public institution that must fully comply with state law and regulations. While we would like to accept all students and assist them in receiving financial aid, we must comply with state law and regulations." According to the lawsuit, an estimated 170 South Carolina students, who are U.S. citizens, but whose parents are undocumented, are expected to pursue higher education in the state each year. About 140 of these students are expected to enroll in the state's public colleges and universities. "What are we saying to our bright college students? We don't want you to be educated? We don't want you to contribute financially to our state through having higher education and higher job skills?" said Tammy Besherse, a staff attorney at South Carolina Appleseed. "You're punishing these college students for something they cannot control." SPOKEO INC: "Robins" Can Redefine Standing in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul A. Scrudato, Brittany Robbins, Thomas M. Crispi of Schiff Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, said the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins, a case that has the potential to redefine standing in federal court. The Ninth Circuit's February 2014 decision permitted plaintiff Thomas Robins to establish standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") with nothing more than a speculative injury. This contravenes Supreme Court precedent, which finds standing when a plaintiff suffers a harm that is actual, distinct, palpable, and concrete; attenuated and hypothetical injuries do not constitute an injury-in-fact. The implications of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Spokeo v. Robins has grabbed the attention of companies in nearly every industry. Their concern, as expressed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- granting standing to plaintiffs who have not suffered an injury-in-fact will open the flood gates to no-injury class actions brought under statutes that authorize a private right of action. But, in truth, the implications to businesses could extend beyond this. Robins initiated a putative class action against Spokeo for violating the FCRA. Spokeo aggregates data from phone books, social networks, marketing surveys, real estate listings, business websites, and other sources into an online database. The FCRA regulates consumer information -- including consumer credit information -- that is collected, disseminated, and used in consumer reports. Spokeo allegedly posted false information about Robins' wealth, education, and marital status. Robins claims that these misrepresentations will negatively affect his credit, insurance and employment prospects. While the Ninth Circuit found that Robins had not suffered actual damages, it ultimately held that the statutory FCRA violation satisfied Article III's injury- in-fact requirement. The Supreme Court has granted cert to determine "[w]hether Congress can create Article III standing by authorizing a remedy for a bare statutory violation." The FCRA engenders dozens of federal class actions each year. That number has jumped since the Ninth Circuit's decision -- 29 FCRA class actions were filed in the first four months of 2014. Many federal statutes authorize a private right of action. For example, internet firms interact with millions of individuals and are subject to numerous federal statutes with private rights of action. Facebook, eBay, Google, and Yahoo! expressed concern in their amicus brief that, under the Ninth Circuit's holding, if any of these users was "willing (or enticed by a plaintiff's attorney) to allege that a generalized practice or act violated a law providing a private cause of action and statutory damages, then she could launch a putative class action on behalf of herself and millions of other 'similarly situated' users . . . [and] pursue a multi-billion dollar statutory damages claim despite the lack of injury . . . ." What do no-injury class actions mean for manufacturers? It could mean lawsuits based on "defective products" that allegedly violate a state or federal statute but have not caused any harm. For example, the food and beverage and cosmetic industries are often accused of misleading consumers through false advertising, labeling, and packaging. ConAgra was sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws for advertising its cooking oils, which were made from GMOs, were 100% natural. And Maybelline was sued under state consumer fraud and consumer protection acts because its "Super Stay" lipstick allegedly didn't stay on the advertised 10-14 hours. Under Robins, plaintiffs in these no-injury, statutory-based class actions would not need to establish that they were physically injured to survive a standing challenge. Will creative plaintiff lawyers be able to craft an argument that extends the no-injury standing rule in Robins to non-statutory violations? The Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits permit statutory violations to confer standing whereas the Second, Fourth, and Federal Circuits require plaintiffs to prove an injury-in-fact. Tune in for oral arguments this Fall. STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04770 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), is an action for damages as proximate result of the Defendant's issuance of an erroneous report and for its failure to provide full-file disclosure despite consumer written requests to do so. Sterling Infosystems, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business in California. Sterling is a provider of employment and background screening services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF LAW, P.C. 234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (310) 430-9933 Facsimile: (818) 484-2023 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com - and - Joshua E. Kim, Esq. A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT 9512 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90002 Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org STEVENS VAN: Faces "Britts" Suit Over Charge-Backs Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Stanford Britts, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Stevens Van Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01267 (N.D. Ohio, June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Truth-in-Leasing (TIL) regulations, specifically by failing to specify charge-backs for insurance and failing to specify the amount which will be charged-back to the lessor. Stevens Van Lines, Inc. is one of the largest authorized carriers for moving services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. Tom Merriman, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com tom@lgmlegal.com SUNRISE, FL: Faces "Wishner" Suit Over Sewage Rate Hike ------------------------------------------------------- Roger B. Wishner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Sunrise, Case No. CACE15010902 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2015), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from charging 40% increased rate of its water distribution and sewage collection systems. The City of Sunrise is a municipality on Broward County, Florida and operates the water and sewage utility system. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis Miner, Esq. Stephanie Casey, Esq. Latoya Brown, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: curt@colson.com scasev@colson.com latoya@colson.com SUNRUN INC: Sued Over Violation of Calif. Licensing Laws -------------------------------------------------------- Tsvetomira Tsanova, writing for See News, reported that U.S. residential solar firm Sunrun Inc. has been taken to court for violating California state licensing laws, and the class action lawsuit is pending before Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr in the state court in Los Angeles. The company has been accused of allegedly arranging for the installation of rooftop solar systems for homes from 2007 until February 9, 2012, without a contractor's license. The defendant denies "any wrongdoing or liability.". Sunrun asserts it is an electricity provider and not a contractor, adding that the solar arrays in question had been installed by licensed contractors. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents the Class. Apart from California, Sunrun is present on the residential solar markets in Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania. TAISHAN GYPSUM: Trial Underway on Chinese Drywall Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Janet McConnaugey, writing for ABC News, reported that lawyers for people contending that Chinese drywall damaged their homes say they have a simple way to help the 2,700 in a class-action suit. "All of the people in this class have been living in a toxic, corrosive environment for years," Chris Seeger told U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon as a trial to decide damages began. Plaintiffs say the drywall gives off sulfur fumes that corrode metals and cause health problems. The class action contains homeowners in Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. A plaintiffs' expert has created a damage formula based on contractors' bids adjusted by ZIP code for local costs, Seeger said. The manufacturer's lawyer, Michael Kenny, said the plaintiffs' formula is based on seven Virginia houses and cannot be applied everywhere. The company, Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., recently paid the owners of those houses and their attorneys $2.7 million plus about $500,000 interest. "Evidence shows this class claim is extreme overreach," Kenny said, asking Fallon not to certify class damages. He also said Taishan found errors in earlier figures, cutting plaintiffs' requests from nearly $1.3 billion in class damages to $502 million. The case is being heard without a jury and Fallon, who certified the class, will decide damages. Only experts are testifying in the trial. Claims dropped from the class action, such as loss and enjoyment of property, attorneys' fees and "move-in/move-out" costs, remain alive and will be tried separately, plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Becnel said during a break. About 1,000 more cases don't fit into the dollars-per-square-foot formula to be set by Fallon and will be tried individually, said Arnold Levin of Philadelphia, one of many plaintiffs' attorneys in the case. "People have lost their homes. Some were put in bankruptcy. Some are living in tents. They can't go into their house and they're living in tents outside," he said. Another manufacturer, German-owned Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., and four companies it supplied agreed in 2010 to pay for home repairs. That settlement is expected to total $1.1 billion, attorneys have said. Plaintiffs include Thomas Stone, fire chief in suburban St. Bernard Parish. He said that Chinese drywall has ruined his life, repeatedly corroding fixtures and appliances in the house he bought and rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina. Stone and his wife bought the house after living for two years in a government trailer -- two years during which Stone worked seven days a week, rebuilding the fire department and the parish. Stone said they moved in in April 2008 and realized something was wrong after Hurricane Gustav hit four months later. "We didn't have electricity for a week. We started noticing stuff rusting -- the faucets, the ceiling fan extension post, door hinges," he said. Later, the computer, television and washing machine broke down. All were new. Since then, they've had to replace two surround- sound systems and another TV. Clocks have broken. The house smells like fireworks and burnt matches. Stone just bought the downstairs air conditioner's sixth set of coils, also replacing a compressor that failed because the coils did. The upstairs unit's coils have been replaced three times. "Almost every week you see something else damaged," he said. TENNESSEE: Class Status Sought in Basic Education Program Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Omarzu, writing for Times Free Press, reported that every school district in Tennessee could be part of the Hamilton County Department of Education's lawsuit against the state's Basic Education Program school funding formula if a judge grants a motion to grant it class-action status. "While the larger districts have been the ones voicing concerns about the underfunding of education, this underfunding has ramifications literally everywhere," school district attorney D. Scott Bennett said. Hamilton County Schools and six nearby school districts -- Bradley, Coffee, Grundy, Marion, McMinn and Polk -- are plaintiffs in the lawsuit Bennett filed on March 24 in Davidson County Chancery Court. The suit claims the state has "breached its duty under the Tennessee Constitution to provide a system of free public education for the children of this state." The lawsuit argues the state doesn't provide enough funding for numerous expenses, including teacher pay and health insurance. The state underestimates by about $10,000 what teachers are actually paid, the lawsuit says, and pays only for 10 months of teachers' 12 months of insurance. Attorneys for the state deny the entire claim. Bennett's lawsuit should be "dismissed in its entirety," said a 32-page memorandum filed in late April by Kevin Steiling, deputy state attorney general. The lawsuit relies on a "profoundly flawed interpretation" of three successful previous lawsuits against the BEP, the memo states. "These pleas for more funding are not properly directed to the courts of Tennessee -- they must be directed to the General Assembly," Steiling wrote. In his 2015-16 budget, which the Legislature passed after the lawsuit was filed, Gov. Bill Haslam added an extra $100 million for teacher salaries and $44 million for inflationary increases in the BEP, along with $30 million to pay for one more month of health insurance for teachers. The lawsuit is being funded by Hamilton County. The smaller districts aren't paying, but Bennett said they will provide data to support the argument that the General Assembly continues to underfund education despite years of recommendations from the BEP Review Committee to increase funding. "We thought it important to get the participation of other area school systems," Bennett said. "Of course, because of their smaller size, these boards cannot contribute financially to the suit." Meanwhile, the board of Shelby County Schools in West Tennessee voted this past week to investigate separate legal action against the state over the BEP. Shelby County Schools Superintendent Dorsey Hopson didn't respond to a request for comment. Hopson was hired in 2008 as Shelby County Schools' attorney before he became superintendent in 2013, and Hopson helped "win a $57.4 million dollar judgment against the city of Memphis in a landmark case involving educational funding," the school district's website says. Bennett said the Atlanta legal firm that Hopson once worked for may sue Tennessee over the BEP. "My understanding is that they are going to retain the firm that Dorsey was with when he was in private practice," Bennett said. "I've been hearing that ... probably since late February." Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers from Chattanooga's delegation to the General Assembly reiterated their opposition to Hamilton County Schools' lawsuit to Times Free Press reporters and editors. "They are suing the taxpayers, that's who they are suing," said House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga. Fully funding the BEP has been estimated to cost $500 million. McCormick said that would have to come out of existing programs, such as funding colleges and universities, because the state constitution mandates K-12 education but not higher education. And Tennesseans don't want higher taxes, he said. "It would be devastating to higher ed," McCormick said. "I do not think that the people of the state are willing to raise taxes." The lawmakers said the BEP lawsuits were motivated by lawyers trying to earn fees. But Bennett, who charges $190 an hour, said he doesn't anticipate the action will increase the school district's legal fees significantly. "We have not hired additional staff to work this file," he said. "So pursuing this case has simply pulled us from other work that we would be doing for the board of education." Bennett expects to get a hearing on his class-action motion before the end of June. TYSON FOODS: Justices Review Appeal in Workers' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- San Jose Mercury News, reported that the Supreme Court agreed to weigh new limits on the ability of workers to band together to dispute pay and workplace issues. The justices said they will review a $5.8 million class-action judgment against Tyson Foods over the pay for more than 3,000 workers at its Storm Lake, Iowa, pork processing plant. The case could allow the high court to elaborate on its 2011 decision blocking a massive sex-discrimination case against Wal- Mart Stores Inc. that would have included up to 1.6 million female workers. Tyson, the Springdale, Arkansas-based company, said it should not have been forced to defend a class-action lawsuit that claims it failed to pay thousands of "knife-wielding" employees and others for time spent putting on and taking off protective work clothes and equipment. A federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled 2-1 for the employees, who worked on the slaughter or "kill" floor and on the processing or "fabrication" floor. Tyson argues that lower courts should not have allowed statistics to determine damages for the entire class based on average times observed in a sample of workers from the class. The company calls that a "trial-by-formula" that the high court rejected in the Wal- Mart case. The company also says the lower courts improperly allowed the class to include hundreds of members who were not injured and would receive no damages in an individual lawsuit. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say courts have used "representative proof" to allow class actions to go forward for nearly 70 years. Tyson has faced similar litigation around the country. In 2010, it settled a decade-long dispute with the U.S. Department of Labor by agreeing to pay workers at some poultry plants for time they spent putting on and taking off protective clothing. The case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 14-1146, will be argued when the court's new term begins in the fall. UPONOR INC: To Resolve US Class Suits Through Enhanced Warranty --------------------------------------------------------------- GlobeNewswire reported that Uponor Corporation's U.S. operative subsidiary company, Uponor, Inc., its insurers and some of its key trade partners (home builders, plumbers and distributors) have come together to resolve the alleged failure risks of Uponor yellow brass fittings sold in the U.S., in connection with two proposed U.S. class action settlements. The process of obtaining court approval of the final settlement terms is underway, as a result of which certain details of the proposed settlement terms have been made public. While the class-action settlements are a path to resolving litigation involving the yellow brass fittings sold in the U.S., Uponor continues to have a high level of confidence in the long- term performance of these products, since they have an excellent track record. According to the terms of the settlements, Uponor, Inc. will provide building owners with an enhanced warranty to cover potential fitting failures. Uponor, Inc.'s obligations under the terms of the proposed settlements will have no material financial impact on the consolidated results of Uponor Corporation. US PENSION COMMITTEE: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Investment Options ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph D. Forte, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative Committee, Investment Committee, Richard Johnson and Edgar Grass, Case No. 1:15-cv-04936-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), seeks damages as a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, specifically by continuing to permit a stock fund to be an investment option for Plan participants despite knowing that it had become an imprudent investment. The U.S. Pension Committee, the Administrative Committee, and the Investment Committee were each a named fiduciary of the Plan authorized to ensure the prudence of Plan investments and to effectuate truthful and accurate communication with Plan participants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq. ZAMANSKY L.L.C. 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com jake@zamansky.com edward@zamansky.com VENDOME HOLLYWOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carla Perez, Ericka Villafana, Deletis Zohara, Carla B. Perez and other similarly situated v. Vendome Hollywood, Inc., Paris Passion, LLC, Mayo Trading, Inc. d/b/a Mambo Fashions and Elliot Sprung, Case No. 2015-014172-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate apparel stores in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: July 20 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vipshop Holdings Limited ("Vipshop" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-3870, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Vipshop securities between February 17, 2015 and May 11, 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"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Vipshop securities during the Class Period, you have until July 20, 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. Vipshop Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online discount retailer for various brands in the People's Republic of China. It offers a range of branded products, including women's apparel, such as casual wear, jeans, dresses, outerwear, swimsuits, lingerie, pajamas, and maternity clothes; men's apparel comprising casual and smart-casual T-shirts, polo shirts, jackets, pants, and underwear; women and men shoes for casual and formal occasions; and accessories consisting of belts, jewelry, watches, and glasses for women and men. The Complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vipshop manipulated and overstated sales, receivables, profit, cash flows, and asset accounts including inventory and investments; (2) Vipshop's financial statements contain GAAP violations by reporting revenue on a 'gross' basis, despite the fact that the vast majority of the company's sales are under a consignment arrangement; (3) Vipshop's internal controls over financial reporting were ineffective; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Vipshop's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 12, 2015, Mithra Forensic Research published a report on Vipshop (the "Mithra Report") asserting, among other things, that: (1) forensic models suggest Vipshop manipulated sales, receivables, profit and other asset accounts; and (2) Vipshop's financial statements have been contradicted by management's own disclosures in several instances. As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.54 per share, or over 5%, to close at $25.78 per share May 12, 2015. On May 14, 2015, during the Company's earnings conference call, it was revealed that Vipshop was the subject of another shortseller report issued by J Capital Research (the "J Capital Report"). According to an article published later that day by TheStreet.com, the J Capital Report presented research "[c]iting discrepancies in the company's accounting" and stating that the Company's "financial filings in China are vastly different than the filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, leading to concerns that the company's results are not accurate." As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.45 per share, or over 5.4%, to close at $25.21 per share May 14, 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. VIRGINIA: NRV Inmates Sue Warden Over Living Conditions ------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sturgeon, writing for The Roanoke Times, reported that nearly 50 inmates at the New River Valley Regional Jail, about 5 percent of the jail's population, have signed a group legal protest of living conditions in the Dublin lockup. On arrival at the jail, the inmates' lawsuit said, the men slept an average of three nights on a concrete floor. The jail packed the inmates together, 10 to a processing tank, without mattresses, linens or toiletries and did not allow showers, according to the litigation, which claims the conditions are inhumane. "This is a civil rights action filed by prisoners confined at New River Valley Regional Jail ... alleging cruel and unusual conditions and denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution," the lawsuit began. The May 27 filing, signed by James Maurice Wynn and pending in Roanoke federal court, alleges that the jail provides inadequate initial health screenings, offers insufficient outdoor time, is overcrowded and hinders access to legal help by withholding stamps and charging 50 cents a page for copies. Wynn, 52, is serving two years of a five-year sentence at the jail for a Carroll County forgery conviction, online court records show. Jail Superintendent Gerald McPeak declined to comment on the lawsuit's allegations in detail, saying he hadn't seen the complaint since its filing. McPeak will receive his copy only after inmates handle additional filing-related steps that are yet to come. Individual prisoner lawsuits over conditions of incarceration course through the federal court on a regular basis, and a large share are dismissed at an early stage as frivolous or otherwise legally insufficient. The Dublin inmates' lawsuit -- a handwritten claim with attached signatures -- is one of a small number of attempted group actions the Roanoke federal court has received in recent years, said Chief Deputy Court Clerk Frances McNulty. In addition to McPeak, the suit names director Harold Clarke of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The jail belongs to an authority for the city of Radford and the counties of Bland, Carroll, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Pulaski and Wythe, and currently houses 757 men and 121 women, McPeak said. According to the filing, a major source of contention is the intake procedure. The suit said the jail places prisoners awaiting trial in holding cells with the windows covered for two to four days without basic necessities. "The plaintiffs were forced to sleep in these small areas on concrete floors for an average of 72 hours," the suit said. Asked to respond to that allegation generally, McPeak wrote by email: "All inmates who have completed the intake process are assigned to a bed." It's unclear whether the allegations will get a full hearing in court. The court has accepted the lawsuit on only a conditional basis. Inmates face a deadline later to complete all required filing steps. Each one must name a date and specific perpetrator for each alleged violation he suffered and demonstrate that he has exhausted the administrative complaint system inside the jail, or risk being tossed out of court. Each man owes court fees unless he applies for and receives a waiver on the basis of indigency. In addition, Wynn asked unsuccessfully for the case to be handled as a class action, in which the court bundles into one case plaintiffs citing common facts and legal questions too numerous to process individually. When he received the case, Magistrate Judge Robert Ballou broke it into 48 individual lawsuits, saying it would be impractical for multiple inmates acting as their own lawyers to proceed as a group. Cell reassignments, lockdowns and personal disagreements would likely get in the way, the judge said. A Roanoke attorney not involved in the case said the case could later become a class action, but the inmates will likely find it difficult to present a strong case for that treatment without legal help. "It's not enough just to sign a piece of paper to be certified as a class," attorney Micah Wright said. However, the workings of the legal system allow the court to appoint lawyers at no cost to assist indigent inmates with civil litigation over conditions of incarceration deemed potentially meritorious by a judge. VISION FINANCIAL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision Financial Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03694 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com WASTE FACILITIES: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin King and Christopher Frisco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waste Facilities, Inc. and Mud Puddles Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00282 (S.D. Tex., June 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate environmental surface disposal and bio-remediation facilities that offer the handling, disposing and reclaiming of drilling fluids and cuttings associated with drilling waste from natural gas rigs across the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Ste 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Services Enrollment ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaylee Heffelfinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-cv-02942 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, illegal, and fraudulent practices of enrolling customers in numerous accounts and services without the customer's authorization or knowledge. Wells Fargo & Company operates the fourth biggest bank in the United States, and is the largest bank headquartered in California. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company, and provides banking products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. Khesraw Karmand, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com WELLS FARGO: Transferred "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Coby Goodman, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-03171, was transferred from the California Central Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02856-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts unlawful foreclosure practices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathon H. Kaplan, Esq. Yitz E. Weiss, Esq. KAPLAN WEISS LLP 355 S Grand Avenue Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-9500 Telephone: (213) 553-4550 Facsimile: (213) 553-4590 E-mail: kaplan@kaplan-lee.com yitz.weiss@kaplan-lee.com - and - Leslie Hurst, Esq. Paula Michelle Roach, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon II, Esq. Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: lhurst@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com tblood@bholaw.com WESTMOUNT, QC: Ex-Hockey Coach Faces New Sexual Abuse Allegation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reported that less than a week after the first alleged victim filed a petition in court to launch a class action lawsuit against the City of Westmount, at least one more person has stepped forward with a similar story. ". . . I received an email from someone who had a very sad and troubling story and his identity will be kept confidential," said lawyer Annabel Busbridge. The court motion claims the city turned a blind eye and failed to put a stop to decades of alleged abuse by former hockey coach and long-time city employee John Garland. Former Westmount resident turned Hollywood independent film director Matthew Bissonette was the first to step forward with allegations of abuse against his former PeeWee hockey coach. Westmount's mayor Peter Trent called the case "one person's unsupported allegations", but at least one more alleged victim has contacted lawyers to join the lawsuit. "I can confirm with absolute certainty that this went on to other boys aside from Matt, who have now become men and who have dealt with this for many, many years," said Busbridge, who filed the court petition. But before a judge will authorize a class action lawsuit, more people need to come forward. "I can't reveal how many have come forward. We are keeping that information strictly confidential," insisted Busbridge. "We want to make sure everyone feels comfortable coming forward and that they know their names will never be published." Lawyers expect to get a court date, and it will be up to the judge to give the class action lawsuit the green light depending on a long list of criteria, including if the number of victims is enough to warrant class action. Bissonette is hoping someone from City Hall will reach out before the case goes to trial. "I'm completely open to meeting with Peter Trent the mayor or with Mike Deegan who runs the city," said Bissonette from his home in Los Angeles. "I believe in seeing if we can work together and find a way for a healthy and a positive solution to the abuse that was allowed to happen there." XUNLEI LIMITED: Aug. 7 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Xunlei Limited and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Xunlei American Depository Shares ("ADSs") (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about June 24, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between June 24, 2014 and May 20, 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 Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Xunlei securities during the Class Period, you have until August 7, 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, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Xunlei Limited operates an Internet platform for digital media content in the People's Republic of China. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose the material risk that its focus on Project Crystal and its mobile initiative would have a detrimental impact on the Company's financial condition. On June 24, 2014, Xunlei conducted its initial public offering ("IPO") and raised approximately $88 million. On May 20, 2015, Xunlei announced its unaudited financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015, which revealed revenues of $30.2 million, down 8.4% year-over-year, and an operating loss of $1.4 million, compared with an operating income of US$3.8 million in the corresponding period. On this news, shares of Xunlei fell sharply during intraday trading on May 21, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Florida, 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. YINGLI GREEN: Says Class Suits Are Groundless --------------------------------------------- Brian Publicover, writing for Recharge, reported that China's Yingli Green Energy has spoken out about one of at least two class-action lawsuits it may face in the US, describing it as groundless. * Harke Clasby Managing Partner Named in Fla. Legal Elite 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- The commercial litigation and consumer class action law firm of Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP (www.harkeclasby.com) announced that Managing Partner Lance A. Harke has been named to Florida Trend Magazine's Legal Elite 2015 in the practice area of commercial litigation. Voting for Legal Elite began in October 2014 when Florida Trend invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to participate. Lawyers were asked to name attorneys whom they hold in the highest regard or would recommend to others. The prestigious list represents less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who practice in the State of Florida. Harke concentrates his trial practice in the areas of products liability, insurance and complex class action and other commercial and consumer litigation matters. He is AV rated by Martindale- Hubbell and admitted to practice law in the State of Florida, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Harke graduated from the University of Florida, with high honors and received his B.A. degree in Philosophy. He received his law degree from University of Miami School of Law, where he graduated cum laude, and was Editor-in- Chief of the University of Miami Law Review. Miami Shores-based Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP was established by founding partner and trial lawyer, Lance A. Harke in 2000. The firm represents clients throughout the State of Florida and in courts across the country in a wide range of commercial law matters related to commercial litigation, business torts, consumer class actions, securities class actions, product liability, insurance litigation, general civil litigation, general commercial litigation, civil appeals, prescription drug issues, employment matters, bad faith issues, professional malpractice, medical malpractice and appellate practice. Mr. Harke may be reached at: Lance August Harke, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami, FL 33138 Tel: (305) 536-8220 Fax: (305) 536-8229 ********* 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 * * *