/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150728.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 149 Headlines 4JLJ LLC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ACXIOM CORPORATION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29 ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL: Bid to Amend Complaint Denied ALABAMA: Inmate Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action, Judge Says ALAMEDA, CA: Illegally Collects Utility Users Tax, Suit Claims ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ALFOCCINO INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Order ALIPHCOM: Court Narrows Claims in "Frenzel" Suit Over Jawbone ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Mochrie" Suit for TCPA Violation AMADEUS IT: Sued in N.Y. Over Collection of Excessive GDS Fees AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hardimon" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Jason Feola Files Class Action ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Teamsters' Class Suit Dismissed ATAMI ON 2ND: Faces "Cao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AUTO PARTS: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AVON CANADA: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Hazard AXA EQUITABLE LIFE: "Shuster" Suit Remanded to NJ Superior Court BDE INC: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hacked Legal Files, Class Action Claims BEST BUY: Judge Recommends Final Approval of "Roeser" Settlement BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Brand Cribs Due to Fall Risk BIOLASE INC: Oct. 9 Class Certification Hearing Set BMW: Recalls 2014 Mini Cooper & Cooper S Due to Noncompliance BOEING COMPANY: 7th Cir. Sends Passengers' Suit to N.D. Cal. BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Workers OT Wages, "Lorusso" Suit Claims BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit BULLDOG SERVICES: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Noteholders' Suit v. Parent Can Proceed CALIFORNIA: Court Rules on Inmate's Claims CAMMAN CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract CITIGROUP INC: ERISA Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Denied COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella COVISINT CORP: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Putative Class Actions CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap Parking CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Trims Securities Class Action DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reiferson" Suit Over Cox Merger DELAWARE NORTH: Volunteer Files Suit vs. Concession Operators DETREX CORPORATION: Sued in Ohio Over Noxious Odor Emission DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: 4th Dist. Affirms Ruling in "Golba" Case DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Restraint of Trade Suit in Calif. Court DIRECTV LLC: Removed "Flynn" Suit to Connecticut District Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids DJ ENGINEERING: Court Decertifies Engineer Class DOLGENCORP LLC: "Farr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ENTRE CORP: Faces "Deas" Suit in M.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Securities Class Action FAIRWAY GROUP: Agreed in Principle to Settle Wage and Hour Action FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FLASH CATERING: "Notarmuzi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FLYNN'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Distribute Workers Tips, Suit Claims FMS INC: N.D. Ill. Judge Throws Out "Gonzalez" FDCPA Suit FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Class Suit Over Power Steering Defect FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FXCM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit GLOBE LIFE: Removed "Proctor" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOME DEPOT: At Least 57 Class Actions Filed Over Data Breach ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Class Suit v. School District 303 Affirmed INSULET CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit JAPAN: Faces "You" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged War-Time Sex Slavery KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Must Face Former Players' Class Suit KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Del. Over Allergan Merger LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP To Refund Overcharged Customers LOUISANA: 5th Cir. Rules on Inmate's Appeal MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: FLSA Case Wins Conditional Certification MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Denied MEXICAN RADIO: "Spiciarich" Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y. MISSION BAY: Bid for Class Certification Granted MISSOURI: Court Dismisses Inmate's Complaint MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Certification Bid in CRT Suit Granted MOVADO GROUP: Individual Plaintiff Files Class Action NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Hall" FDCPA Class Action Goes to Trial NESTLE USA: Faces "Gyorke-Takatri" Suit Over Product Misbranding NEW DOMINION: Okla. High Ct. Allows Earthquake Suit to Continue NISSIN FOODS: Court Trims "Guttman" Suit Over Noodles OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Joint Combined Motion in Limine OCWEN FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in "Adelson" Case OHANA MILITARY: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Pesticides Suit OM GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Probes Acquisition by Apollo Funds OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Mitra" Class Suit to C.D. California PENINSULA GRILL: Clement May Join FLSA Class Suit, Court Says PENNY NEWMAN: Wins Initial Approval of Employee Case Settlement PROCTER & GAMBLE: Princeton Joins Wyoming in Wet Wipes Suit QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing in Appeal to be Completed QUALITY SYSTEMS: Facing Foss, Deerfield Class Actions RIGHT CHOICE: Court Sends "Thomas" FLSA Suit to Arbitration RITA'S FRANCHISE: Faces "Newby" Suit in Pa. Over TCPA Violation ROBERT DERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ROCK CREEK: Entered Into MOU to Settle with Jonnie Williams SPRINT CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing on August 5 SPRINT CORP: Settlement in Process of Administration SPRINT CORP: Richard Wuest Action in Early Stages SPRINT CORP: Lindsay Class Action in Early Stages SPRINT CORP: Discovery Ongoing Clearwire Stockholders Action STATE FARM: Bid to Certify Question to Ky. High Court Overruled STATE FARM: 5th Cir. Rules on Appeals in "Rigsby" Suit SURVEYING ACCESSORIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TETLEY USA: Bid to File 4th Amended Complaint Denied TRANSURBAN: Va. Drivers Sue Over Penalties for Unpaid Toll Fees UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Agarwal" Amended Suit Denied UNIV. OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Greer" Bias Suit Dismissed VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES: Settlements in CRT Class Suit Win Initial OK WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Class Claims May Proceed, 6th Cir. Says WALGREEN CO: Father of 'Bottle Bill' Sues Over Bottle Redemptions WESTERN POWER: Class Suit Over Perth Hills Bush Fire Advances WILLOW INC: Sued by Homeowners in Harvey Gated Community XOOM CORP: Faces "Beverly" Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger * Hausfeld Inks $19.5-Mil. Settlement in Potatoes Antitrust Suit ********* 4JLJ LLC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 4JLJ, LLC d/b/a J4 Oilfield Services, Case No. 2:15- cv-00299 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4JLJ, LLC provides equipment and services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Burdett Moulton, Esq. MOULTON AND PRICE PC 109 SH 110 S Whitehouse, TX 75791 Telephone: (903) 871-3163 E-mail: jim@moultonprice.com ACXIOM CORPORATION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing on whether to grant final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit is tentatively scheduled for July 29, 2015. On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc. (now known as Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company), a subsidiary of the Company. The action seeks to certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward, were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose existed. The complaint alleges various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have reached a settlement agreement and the Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable loss associated with this matter. On April 21, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement. A hearing on whether to grant final approval of the settlement is tentatively scheduled for July 29, 2015. The Company believes the chances of additional loss are remote. ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL: Bid to Amend Complaint Denied ------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in the case captioned ZACH WESTBROOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-131 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Div.). On April 21, 2014, an "opt in" collective action was brought against Advanced Solids Control, alleging that Advanced Solids failed to pay its solids control technicians overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Leave to File First Amended Complaint, seeking to add state law claims under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs also sought to bring their originally filed FLSA opt-in cause of action simultaneously with a traditional opt-out class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finding substantial reason to deny the motion, Judge Libby held that plaintiffs have not articulated a reason to grant the amendment or an explanation why the amendment is sought at this stage of the litigation. A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/hZDIqSfrom Leagle.com. Zach Westbrook, Guadalupe Lara, David Joseph R. Baeza, Jr., Rodney W. Williams, Maurice Wortham, John Johnson, Raul Gamboa, John D Gerva, Mark A Allen, Corry Youngblood, Luis De La Cruz, William M. Rowley, Craig Brockway, Ronnie Washington, Johnathon Carey, Jeremy R Jones, Emmanuel Madison, Humberto Montes, Terry L Stevenson, Jesse Catalan, Maura G. Lara, Johnny A. Jackson, Frank Menchaca, Cory Otlewski, Lowell D Bartlett, Alejandro Ledezma, Gerald I Trujillo, Epolito G Lara, Jonathan C Head, Jason Morris, and Robert S Golden, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard J Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC, Andrew Dunlap, Fibich Hampton et al, Lindsay Rae Itkin, Fibich Leebron et al & Michael A Josephson, Fibich, Hampton, LeeBron, Briggs & Josephson, LLP. Advanced Solids Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael D Seale -- mseale@craincaton.com -- CRAIN CATON & JAMES PC & Juliann Hale Panagos -- jpanagos@craincaton.com -- Crain Caton & James PC. ALABAMA: Inmate Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action, Judge Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody recommended the denial of the Motion for Class Certification filed in the case captioned NILES HAMPTON HARE, #135983, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-710-MHT (M.D. Ala., Northern Div.). A complaint was filed by Niles Hampton Hare, a state inmate, challenging actions taken with respect to the deduction of funds from his work release earnings. On June 4, 2015, Hare filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23, seeking to represent the interests of all inmates currently participating in the prison system's work release program. Judge Coody held that a pro se inmate does not have sufficient competence to litigate the claims of other individuals. Among the requirements to maintain an action as a class action is that the "representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." A copy of the June 16, 2015 recommendation is available at http://is.gd/7UUtkkfrom Leagle.com. Niles Hampton Hare, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas, Sharon McSwain-Holland, and Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by Albert Sim Butler, Alabama Department of Corrections. ALAMEDA, CA: Illegally Collects Utility Users Tax, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde Grossman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Alameda and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15777784 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged illegal collection of Utility Users Tax for mobile phone services and long distance telephone services. The City of Alameda is located within Alameda County and has a population of approximately 76,419 residents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. Howard B. Miller, Esq. Robert Finnerty, Esq. Christopher Aumais, Esq. Alexandra T. Steele, Esq. Carlos Urzua, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 - and - Thomas S. Slovak, Esq. SLOVAK, BARON, EMPEY, MURPHY & PINKNEY, LLP 1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: (760) 322-2275 Facsimile: (760) 322-2107 E-mail: sartain@sbemp.com ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmine Smith, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Alcove Assisted Living Facility, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01655-CEH- TBM (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Alcove Assisted Living Facility, Inc. owns and operates an elder care facility in Pinellas County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: William John Gadd, Esq. W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 Facsimile: (727) 524-6330 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com ALFOCCINO INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IMHOFF INVESTMENT, L.L.C., Plaintiff, AVIO, INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFOCINO, INC.; D. TALIERCIO INVESTMENTS, INC.; FARSHID SHUSHTARI, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-1704 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Alfoccino and remanded the case for further proceedings. Avio, Inc. sued Alfoccino for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by hiring Business to Business Solutions ("B2B") to send unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Avio and a class of similarly situated persons. The district court granted Alfoccino's motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Avio's case for lack of Article III standing and because Avio could not prove Alfoccino was vicariously liable for B2B's transmission of the faxes. The appellate court, however, found that Avio has demonstrated that it does have Article III standing to bring its claim. The appellate court also found that primary, not vicarious liability attaches to Alfoccino under the TCPA. It explained that the pertinent regulations of the Federal Communications Commission are explicit that the party whose goods or services are advertised - and not the fax broadcaster - is the sender. A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/d3MOHKfrom Leagle.com. ON BRIEF: Phillip A. Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. John R. Prew, Jason R. Mathers -- jmathers@harveykruse.com -- HARVEY KRUSE, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Appellees. ALIPHCOM: Court Narrows Claims in "Frenzel" Suit Over Jawbone ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned ROBERT FRENZEL, Plaintiff, v. ALIPHCOM, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03587- WHO (N.D. Cal.). On August 7, 2014, a suit was filed by Robert Frenzel against Aliphcom dba Jawbone. Frenzel accused Jawbone of fraudulently inducing him to purchase a Jawbone UP fitness tracker wristband through misrepresentations regarding the device's battery life and general functionality. The complaint asserted the following causes of action against Jawbone: (1) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (3) violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (4) breach of express warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. After the dismissal of his original complaint, Frenzel filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") based on two theories: (1)that Jawbone misrepresented that Jawbone UP "retains its [battery] charge for 10 days when fully charged;" and (2)that Jawbone misrepresented that the device "would accurately 'track' and 'measure' a user's movement, sleep patterns, and calorie intake." Jawbone moved to dismiss, contending that both theories are defective under Rule 9(b). Judge Orrick declined to hold that California's choice of law rules prohibit Frenzel from maintaining his claims against Jawbone, and denied the motion to dismiss on this ground. Judge Orrick also denied the motion to dismiss Frenzel's CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims based his battery life theory, finding it sufficient that Frenzel has alleged how long after he acquired each device it began lasting only a few hours or a day. Jawbone's motion to dismiss Frenzel's CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims arising from the functionality theory was however, granted. Judge Orrick held that general statements about a product's functionality - as opposed to statements regarding the product's quality or reliability - do not become actionable on an affirmative misrepresentation theory merely because the product fails to work perfectly. Judge Orrick also dismissed Frenzel's warranty claims because Frenzel did not allege in the FAC that Jawbone failed to repair or replace either of his devices during the applicable warranty periods. A copy of the July 7, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/cE5z6ofrom Leagle.com. Robert Frenzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Julia A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.. Aliphcom, doing business as Jawbone, Defendant, represented by Mortimer H. Hartwell -- mhartwell@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Howard Holderness -- holdernessh@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & Jeremy Noah Lateiner -- jlateiner@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Mochrie" Suit for TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Holly Mochrie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00855-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne Lahiff, Esq. 8 Cayuga Road Cranford, NJ 07016 Telephone: (862) 812-0623 E-mail: rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com AMADEUS IT: Sued in N.Y. Over Collection of Excessive GDS Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Gordon, et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05457 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive practices, specifically by charging supra-competitive "global distribution systems" (GDS) fees that have inflated ticket prices for airline passengers. Amadeus IT Group, S.A. is a provider of GDS services to the Airlines and other air carriers operating to, from, and within the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Mayra V. Tarantino, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com mtarantino@litedepalma.com - and - Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. Mindee J. Rueben, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG 1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 519-8306 Facsimile: (215) 569-0958 E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com mreuben@litedepalma.com - and - Renae D. Steiner, Esq. Vincent J. Esades, Esq. James W. Anderson, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. HEINS MILLS &OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com rsteiner@heinsmills.com janderson@heinsmills.com imcfarland@heinsmills.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON &MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Peter A. Barile, Esq. GRANT &EISENHOFER, PA 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com pbarile@gelaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Ryan J. McEwan, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com - and - Gerald J. Rodos, Esq. Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19130 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: grodos@barrack.com jgittleman@barrack.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael J. Kane, Esq. BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3009 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mkane@bm.net - and - Joseph Goldberg, Esq. Vincent J. Ward, Esq. Josh Ewing, Esq. Frank T. Davis, Esq. FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A. 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 842-9960 Facsimile: (505) 842-0761 E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com vjw@fbdlaw.com je@fbdlaw.com ftd@fbdlaw.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Dena C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com chc@GirardGibbs.com - and - Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: jistvan@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq. Ronnie Seidel Spiegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 268-9352 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com ronnie@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 West Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. SAVERI &SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: rsaveri@saveri.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF &WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com - and - Andrew J. McGuiness, Esq. ANDREW J.MCGUINNESS, ESQ. 122 South Main Street, Suite 118 P.O. Box 7711 Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7711 Telephone: (734) 274-9374 Facsimile: (734) 786-9935 E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com - and - Harry Shulman, Esq. SHULMAN LAW 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830 San Francisco, CA 94104-4811 Telephone: (415) 901-0505 Facsimile: (415) 901-0506 E-mail: harry@shulmanlawfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Lois Giordano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-02310-M (N.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070 Houston TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: BFJ@Chimicles.com AWF@Chimicles.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hardimon" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Hardimon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-03881-GAM (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Goldman, Esq. Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC 101 E. Lancaster Ave Suite 204 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: goldman@gsk-law.com scarlato@gsk-law.com penny@gsk-law.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Judah Nathanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-04101-ENV-VVP (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Frank, Esq. Marvin L. Frank, Esq. Bridget V. Hamill, Esq. Asher Hawkins, Esq. FRANK & BIANCO LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com mfrank@frankandbianco.com bhamill@frankandbianco.com ahawkins@frankandbianco.com APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Jason Feola Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a complaint was filed on March 6, 2015, in United States District Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola, individually and as a representative of a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the Company. Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of the Company's common stock for $984 in total consideration. "To our knowledge, neither the Company nor the individual defendants have been served the complaint. The complaint alleges that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This matter has been forwarded to our insurance carrier and we intend to contest vigorously the claims made in the complaint," the Company said. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Teamsters' Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County granted the Motion to Dismiss filed in the case captioned TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and ZENECA, INC., Defendants, C.A. NO. N04C-11-191 VLM (Del., New Castle County). In November 18, 2004, a class action suit was filed by six New York-based health care funds against Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. and Zeneca, Inc. alleging consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Astrazeneca's marketing of its prescription heartburn medication, Nexium. On March 3, 2005, Astrazeneca moved to dismiss. The Superior Court of Delaware granted Astrazeneca's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under applicable law. A copy of the July 8, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/6XEQhrfrom Leagle.com. A. Zachary Naylor -- ZN@chimicles.com -- Esquire, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Plaintiffs. Michael P. Kelly, Esquire -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Defendants. ATAMI ON 2ND: Faces "Cao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yi Cao, Bin Dou, Zhiwei Yuan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Atami on 2nd Avenue Inc., d/b/a Atami Japanese Fusion, Michael "Doe", Judy "Doe", Joe "Doe", Jenny "Doe", Qiu Ru Dong, and Jian Zeng Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 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 1167 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10065. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com AUTO PARTS: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Moore v. Auto Parts Group Southwest, LLC, d/b/a Pick-N-Pull Auto Dismantling and Used Auto Sales, Case No. 4:15-cv-00425-JM (E.D. Ark., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of purchasing used and salvage vehicles from tow companies, private parties, auto auctions, charities and insurance companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. Joshua Lee West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com AVON CANADA: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 15, 2015 Posting date: July 15, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54198 This recall involves nut choppers sold by Avon. The product consists of two transparent plastic compartments, a stainless steel chopping mechanism, a steel and plastic crank and a non-skid rubberized base. The plastic parts of the nut chopper are orange. The lower compartment has a capacity of 1 1/4 cups (12.7 x 7.6 x 17.3 cm high). The recalled product can be identified by the UPC 094000870954 and date code F3730731. Avon has identified a potential problem with the chopping teeth, which can bend or break, posing an injury hazard. Bits of the blades can end up in food. In Canada, Avon Canada has received one report of an incident related to breakage of one of the chopping teeth after several uses of the product. No injuries were reported. Health Canada has received no reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. In the United States, Avon Products Inc. has received six reports from consumers of the chopping teeth bending or breaking. No injuries were reported. Approximately 5,097 recalled choppers were sold in Canada, and approximately 26,063 were sold the United States. The recalled products were sold from June to December 2013 through the network of Avon representatives. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Shenyuan Bamboo et Wood Products (Jiayuan Co. Ltd.) Hong Kong CHINA Distributor: Avon Canada ULC Pointe Claire Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the nut choppers and contact Avon for a refund. For more information, consumers may contact Avon Canada toll-free at 1-800-265-2866, Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm EST, or visit Avon Canada's website. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/Kl2vWp AXA EQUITABLE LIFE: "Shuster" Suit Remanded to NJ Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert B. Kugler remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, the case captioned ARLENE SHUSTER, Plaintiff, v. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 14-8035 (RBK/JS) (D.N.J., Camden Vicinage). On November 17, 2014, Arlene Shuster brought a state law breach of contract class action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, alleging that AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company ("AXA") violated New York law by implementing an investment strategy for certain investment accounts without properly obtaining approval from the New York State Department of Financial Services ("DFS"). AXA removed the case to district court on December 29, 2014. Shortly after AXA's Notice of Removal was filed, Shuster filed a Motion to remand the action to state court. AXA opposed Shuster's motion and also asked for the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the case is precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"). Shuster maintained that remand is appropriate because the purported state law claims are not subject to preclusion under SLUSA. Judge Kugler found that AXA has failed to satisfy its required showing in order to remove and dismiss the action pursuant to SLUSA, and as such, remand is required. He held that though misrepresentation appears to be a material element of the claim, there is no indication that it was a misrepresentation made in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities. A copy of the July 14, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/swn5xffrom Leagle.com. ARLENE SHUSTER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by SUNG-MIN LEE -- SLee@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART PC. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ANDREW MUSCATO -- andrew.muscato@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP & CARL D. POPLAR. BDE INC: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zantrail Tramel Jenkins, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. BDE, Inc., d/b/a Taco Bell, Case No. 8:15-cv-01648- JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. BDE, Inc. operates as a part of the nationwide chain of restaurants that serves customers traveling from all parts of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: William John Gadd, Esq. W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 Facsimile: (727) 524-6330 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hacked Legal Files, Class Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that major worker's compensation insurers, including a Berkshire Hathaway company, hacked into thousands of confidential legal files to save money on judgments and settlements, an Angeleno claims in a federal class action. Hector Casillas claims the insurers "hacked into privileged and confidential litigation files of thousands of individuals litigating worker's compensation cases against them. The defendants stole these files from servers used by law firms representing the individual litigants and used the illegally obtained information to obtain a litigation advantage." The insurance company defendants are Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, Cypress Insurance and Zenith Insurance. Other corporate defendants are Broadspire Claims Services and the Knox Ricksen law firm. Also named as defendants are attorneys Eric Danowitz, Daniel Sharp, Russell Ching and Stella Mendoza, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies investigator William Reynolds and Zenith employee Oliver Glover. "Their corrupt conduct evidenced a total disregard for the integrity of the judicial system," Casillas said in the June 23 complaint. It continues: "The American system of justice depends upon fair play in an impartial forum. A fair and impartial forum for rich and poor alike is [a] central feature of the American way of life and is important to our national reputation." Casillas claims the insurers hacked into tens of thousands legal files, including about 5,000 from Reyes & Barsoum, a prominent worker's compensation law firm in California. Casillas, a client of Reyes & Barsoum, says the lawsuit "is directed against those powerful insurance companies and their co- conspirators who, because of their immense wealth and power, acted as if they were above the law." The insurers are among the nation's largest underwriters of worker's compensation insurance and provide coverage for a large percentage of workers in California, Casillas says. He claims they hired investigators who "hacked into and stole stored confidential attorney-client files in cases in which they were the insurer" and hired Knox Ricksen, which "willingly and knowingly participated" in the scheme, to gain a legal advantage. He claims that attorneys for Reyes & Barsoum first suspected the hacking during an April 20, 2014 hearing when attorneys Ching and Mendoza revealed they had Casillas' "attorney-privileged intake packet" that bore Rony M. Barsoum's name at the top of the first page and contained the retainer agreement Casillas had signed. When the judge asked how Ching and Mendoza had obtained the confidential file, they gave several explanations before saying they didn't know, Casillas says. The judge declared the documents to be protected by attorney- client privilege and ordered Ching and Mendoza to turn them over to Reyes & Barsoum, along with any others that might turn up after a "diligent search," the complaint states. Defendant Danowitz later told law firm partner Jorge Reyes that the confidential documents were downloaded from the website for HG Sign-Up Services, with whom Reyes & Barsoum have an agreement to provide services for clients who can't come to the law office due to financial, physical or transportation reasons, Casillas says. He claims that defendant investigators Reynolds and Glover worked for the insurers and "implemented a scheme to wrongfully engage in continuous cyber attacks over a period of years" to obtain and use thousands of confidential documents to gain a legal advantage and "save huge sums in judgments or settlements." Casillas says all of the defendants conspired in the hacking scheme on a nationwide basis. He seeks class certification, disgorgement, an injunction and exemplary damages for fraud, conversion, invasion of privacy, interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, California's Business and Professions Code and the state's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. He is represented by Mark Ravis, who was not immediately available for comment. Nor were representatives for Reyes & Barsoum or Knox Ricksen. BEST BUY: Judge Recommends Final Approval of "Roeser" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Peter Roeser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Best Buy Stores, L.P.; BBY Solutions, Inc.; Bestbuy.com, LLC; and Geek Squad; Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1968 (JRT/HB) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended (1) granting the plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement, and (2) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for class representative service award and for an award of fees, costs, and expenses to settlement class counsel. On July 22, 2013, a putative class action was filed against Geek Squad's "Home Networking Made Simple" (HNMS) product, alleging the following causes of action: (1) consumer fraud, (2) false advertising, (3) deceptive trade practices, (4) unlawful trade practices, (5) breach of contract, and (6) unjust enrichment. The parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement agreement which was granted preliminary approval after a hearing on January 6, 2015. The final approval hearing was set for April 9, 2015. Judge Bowbeer found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and recommended that it be granted final approval. Plaintiff sought a class representative service award in the amount of $2,000 in the form of a Best Buy gift card. Judge Bowbeer recommended that the award be approved, finding it to be a reasonable award to compensate the class representative for his work in initiating the case, gathering documents for production, and assisting class counsel. In determining the reasonableness of class counsel's requested fees, Judge Bowbeer adopted the lodestar method but declined to recommend applying a multiplier to the lodestar amount. He recommended $358,182.25 as a reasonable fee award. Finally, Judge Bowbeer found that the costs and expenses amounting to $21,357.82 are reasonable, are typical of costs and expenses ordinarily charged to clients, and were necessary to the resolution of the litigation. A copy of the June 17, 2015 report and recommendation is available at http://is.gd/VOoisafrom Leagle.com. BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Brand Cribs Due to Fall Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 15, 2015 Posting date: July 15, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Identification number: RA-54188 This recall includes specific models of the DaVinci brand cribs manufactured between May 2012 and December 2012. The affected DaVinci brand cribs include the following models: Model Name Model Number Purchase Order (serial number) ---------- ------------ ------------------------------ Reagan crib 2801 4959/ 5035/ 5109 Emily crib 4791 4648/ 4669/ 4962 Jamie crib 7301 4954/ 5029 Jenny Lind 7391 4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/ crib 4994/ 5041/4648 The purchase order number, model number and manufacture date can be found on the label located on the side panel of the crib. The purchase order number is listed as "serial number" and is preceded by "N00" on the label. A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can break and become detached from the crib, creating an uneven sleeping surface or a gap. If this occurs, a child can become entrapped in the crib, fall or be lacerated by the broken metal bracket. Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of the affected cribs. Bexco Enterprises, Inc. has received 10 reports in the US of detachment. No injuries were reported as a result of the detached bracket. Approximately 40 affected cribs in Canada and nearly 11,900 affected cribs in the United States were distributed at juvenile products retailers nationwide. The recalled products were manufactured between May 2012 and December 2012. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Bexco Enterprises Inc., Montebello California UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and contact the company for a free replacement mattress support which includes new attached brackets. In the meantime, parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the child's age. Consumers should contact DaVinci toll-free at (888) 673-6652 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or by e-mail or visit the company's website. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/LZxyoG BIOLASE INC: Oct. 9 Class Certification Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------- The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Bernstein Liebhard LLP. In re BIOLASE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 13-1300-JLS (FFMx) IN THE United States District Court Central District of California SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF BIOLASE, INC. ("BIOLASE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST 13, 2013, INCLUSIVE. PARA UNA NOTIFICACION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR O VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a hearing will be held on October 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Josephine Staton, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92701-4516, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of $1,750,000.00 in cash, plus any return thereon, should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants and their Corresponding Released Parties as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of March 30, 2015; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; (5) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation should be approved; and (6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. WHO'S INCLUDED? If you purchased BIOLASE common stock during the period of November 5, 2012 through August 13, 2013, inclusive, (the "Class Period") your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Litigation. You are a Settlement Class Member only if you bought BIOLASE shares individually, not simply through a mutual fund. If you sold stock during the Class Period, you are only a Settlement Class Member if those shares were purchased during the Class Period. If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by writing to BIOLASE, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479, or by calling 866- 742-4955 (toll free). You may also obtain copies on the internet at www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html. Complete information concerning the Litigation may be obtained from the Court files on this matter. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? The lawsuit claimed that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting and omitting material facts about, among other things, the growth of, and demand for, BIOLASE's WaterLase dental laser systems, and BIOLASE's Class Period liquidity. Defendants denied they did anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side was right. But both sides agreed to the Settlement to resolve the case and provide payment to investors. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Defendants agreed to create a fund of $1.75 million in cash, plus any return thereon, to be divided among all Settlement Class Members who send in valid Proofs of Claim, following deduction of fees and expenses. The Stipulation, available at www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html, describes all of the details about the proposed Settlement. Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on the number of valid Proofs of Claim that Settlement Class Members send in, how many BIOLASE shares you bought, and when you bought and sold them. Generally, if you bought more shares and have more Recognized Losses (as explained in the detailed Notice), you will get more money. If you bought fewer shares and have fewer Net Recognized Losses, you will get less. If every eligible Settlement Class Member sends in a valid Proof of Claim, the average payment will be 10 cents per share before deduction of Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approximately 7 cents per share after deduction of fees and expenses. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT? If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a Proof of Claim on or before August 15, 2015, either by U.S. Mail at the address above and postmarked no later than August 15, 2015, or submitted by electronic means not later than midnight EST on August 15, 2015. Instructions for electronic submission of the Proof of Claim are available at www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html. The submitted Proof of Claim must establish that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim, unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the address above. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the address above and postmarked no later than September 24, 2015, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice. WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice and sent to Biolase, Inc. Securities Litigation, RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479, such that it is received no later than September 24, 2015: BMW: Recalls 2014 Mini Cooper & Cooper S Due to Noncompliance ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 4130 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015306TC ID number: 2015306 Certain vehicles may not comply with the side impact protection requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 214, which is voluntarily-adopted in Canada. As a result, rear seat occupants could be at a higher risk of injury in a side- impact crash. Correction: Dealers will install additional energy absorption material between the rear interior side panels and the exterior vehicle body, as necessary. Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2014-584. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MINI COOPER 2014 MINI COOPER S 2014 BOEING COMPANY: 7th Cir. Sends Passengers' Suit to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The federal district court in San Francisco, California, and not the state court in Illinois, should hear a class action lawsuit filed by airline passengers against The Boeing Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled. On July 6, 2013, a Boeing 777 hit the seawall that separates the ocean from the end of a runway at San Francisco International Airport. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the principal cause of the accident was pilot error. Suits brought in federal courts in California, and some other district courts, were consolidated by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a). Some passengers filed suit against the Boeing Company in state courts of Illinois, contending that the plane's autothrottle, autopilot, and low-airspeed-warning systems contributed to the pilots' errors. Boeing removed these suits to federal court, asserting two sources of jurisdiction: admiralty, plus federal officials' right to have claims against them resolved by federal courts. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation then decided that these suits, too, should be transferred to California to participate in the consolidated pretrial proceedings. But before receiving the Panel's formal directions to transfer the suits to California, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that Boeing did not act as a federal officer for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. Section 1442 and that the tort occurred on land, when the plane hit the seawall, rather than over navigable water. On appeal by Boeing, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that Section 1442 does not support removal. It explained that the Federal Aviation Administration or any other agency has delegated, not the power to make rules, but the power to certify compliance with them. However, the appellate court concluded that 28 U.S.C. Section 1333(1) supplies admiralty jurisdiction, which shows that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Boeing therefore was entitled to remove these suits to federal court. The district court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to rescind the remand orders and transfer the cases to the Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, consistent with the decision of the Panel on Multidistrict region. The case before the Seventh Circuit is, LU JUNHONG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, et al. v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant- Appellant, NO. 14-1825 (7th Cir.). A copy of the July 8, 2015 decision is available at http://is.gd/nf3ulSfrom Leagle.com. BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Workers OT Wages, "Lorusso" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Lorusso, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01654-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Bob Evans Farms, LLC operates as a part of the nationwide chain of restaurants that serves customers traveling from all parts of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: William John Gadd, Esq. W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 Facsimile: (727) 524-6330 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADRs") between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The action seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company that is the largest petrochemicals producer in Latin America. Braskem is also the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the Americas. Braskem buys naphtha, which accounts for half of its production costs and is the main ingredient for making petrochemicals in Brazil, from Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras ("Petrobras") under long- term agreements. Petrobras provides approximately 70% of Braskem's naphtha needs. According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on March 11, 2015, when a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo, implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding Petrobras. As reported by Folha de S. Paolo, according to testimony made by former Petrobras executive Paulo Roberto Costa and self-confessed money launderer Alberto Youssef, Braskem paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras between 2006 and 2012. The payments were made to acquire crude derivative contracts like propylene and naphtha at cheaper prices. On this news, Braskem ADRs fell over 20%, or $1.80 per ADR, on March 11, 2015. If you purchased Braskem ADRs during this time period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than August 31, 2015. Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott- scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (646) 582-0121) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott- scott.com. BULLDOG SERVICES: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Middleton and Kevin Oliver, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Bulldog Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00227-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Bulldog Services, LLC is an Alabama corporation that provides contract labor to various shipyards multiple job locations in Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq. Joseph A. Lococo, Esq. Jacob King, Esq. LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA P. O. Box 6014 D'Iberville, MS 39532 Telephone: (228) 392-3799 E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com joseph.lococo@lococolaw.com jake.king@lococolaw.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Noteholders' Suit v. Parent Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Bankruptcy Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar in Chicago denied the motion of the debtors Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. and more than 170 of its subsidiaries for a preliminary injunction under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, to halt four civil actions against CEOC's non-debtor parent, Caesars Entertainment Corp. in other courts. The actions arise out of nearly $4.6 billion in second lien and senior unsecured notes that CEOC issued and CEC guaranteed. The plaintiffs in the four actions -- indenture trustees and holders of the notes -- brought the actions after CEC claimed that two 2014 transactions involving CEC had released the guarantees. Those plaintiffs include (1) Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB; (2) BOKF, N.A.; (3) MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund, LP; Relative Value-Long/Short Debt Portfolio, a Series of Underlying Funds Trust; SB 4 CF LLC; CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd.; and Trilogy Portfolio Co., LLC; and (4) Frederick Barton Danner, as representative of a plaintiff class. The actions seek damages from CEC for breach of contract (among other things) as well as declaratory judgments that the guarantees are still in effect. The debtors contend the actions should be enjoined because their prosecution threatens the success of the debtors' chapter 11 cases. MeehanCombs et al. opposed the debtors' request. Judge Goldgar said the debtors have not shown they are entitled to the injunctive relief they request. The adversary case is, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOKF, N.A., et al., Defendants, No. 15 A 149 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.). A copy of Judge Goldgar's July 22, 2015 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/5B9u4mfrom Leagle.com. Reuters and CNBC report that Judge Goldgar's July 22 ruling caused Caesars Entertainment's shares to briefly plunged about 60% that day -- to a low of $3.30. Following its initial dip after the ruling, the Company's stock pared some of those losses to a price above $5 (still a more than 30% loss on the day). Reuters and CNBC say the creditor lawsuits claim up to $11 billion. The report noted that Caesars has said it may join its operating unit in bankruptcy if those lawsuits were not put on hold. * * * Kimberly Pierceall, writing for The Associated Press, reports that it's the company's creditors that have been suing Caesars in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the company robbed the subsidiary of valuable assets that were transferred to other divisions and removed their guarantees as investors and noteholders in the process. In the two cases in New York, creditors are seeking more than $7 billion in claims and have sought a summary judgment from the court. A court clerk said on July 22 that no date has been set for the motion to be heard. Company attorneys have argued that losing the litigation would be dire to the casino company's finances, rendering its plan to contribute some $2.5 billion in funds -- although creditors have been skeptical of the amount -- to help its subsidiary emerge from bankruptcy moot. The July 22 bankruptcy court ruling doesn't spell immediate doom for the casino giant. The judge in the New York case would still need to rule. If Caesars didn't win the case, the company could appeal. "We believe our defenses in the New York litigation are strong, and will continue to contest those cases vigorously," said Caesars spokesman Stephen Cohen in an emailed statement after the ruling. "The bankruptcy court's ruling was a technical interpretation of bankruptcy law and did not address in any way the merits of the New York litigation." CALIFORNIA: Court Rules on Inmate's Claims ------------------------------------------ In the case captioned KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT, Plaintiff, v. DR. FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-01229-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order transferring certain claims to the Southern and Central Districts and dismissing remaining claims, among other matters. A pro se civil rights action was filed by Kenneth Jerome Packnett, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJDCF"), alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP") from November through December 2012. Packnett sought monetary and punitive damages as well as declaratory relief. Judge Rogers dismissed Packnett's claims against the defendants at the California Institution for Men ("CIM"), where he was housed during a layover in his transfer from SQSP to RJDCF, because CIM is located within the venue of the Central District of California. The dismissal was without prejudice to the refiling of the claims in a new civil rights action in the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Packnett's claims against defendants at the RJDCF were also dismissed because RJDCF is located within the venue of the Southern District of California. The dismissal was also without prejudice to the refiling of the claims in a new civil rights action in the court of the said district. The Court dismissed without prejudice Packnett's claims for disability discrimination, conspiracy, and violation of his rights under the Armstrong Remedial Plan. Judge Rodgers, however, acknowledged in his order that Packnett also states certain cognizable claims. A copy of the July 10, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/rqri50from Leagle.com. CAMMAN CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- 367 Waverly Avenue Realty LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Camman Construction Group Corp., et al., Case No. 508628/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 14, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, specifically by failing to timely, properly and fully perform the construction of ten residential apartments within three floors above the existing one-story commercial structure, the installation of a new fa9ade on the ground floor, the installation of a staircase in the basement and repairs and upgrades to the basement of the of the premises located at 367 Waverly Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. Camman Construction Group Corp. owns and operates a New York based construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Asselta, Esq. FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP 367 Waverly Avenue Realty LLC 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 248-1700 E-mail: jasselta@forchellilaw.com CITIGROUP INC: ERISA Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John G. Koeltl denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the case captioned IN RE CITIGROUP ERISA LITIGATION, NO. 11 CV.7672 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.). Citigroup employees brought consolidated class action was brought against the defendants, asserting that the latter violated their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Their claims were based on the defendants' purported mismanagement of the employee stock ownership plans ("ESOPs") when the defendants continued to allow the plaintiffs to invest in Citigroup common stock at a time when Citigroup stock was falling drastically. In an opinion and order dated May 13, 2015, Judge Koeltl dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety, holding that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under ERISA's statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs' fiduciary claims were without merit. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 135 S.Ct. 1823 (2015) compels reconsideration of both these grounds for dismissal. Judge Koeltl, however, found that Tibble and the present case have little in common. Tibble did not involve claims based on a drop in an employer's stock price, but concerned allegations of buying mutual funds at a retail price when they could have been obtained more cheaply at an institutional price. Accordingly, nothing in Tibble casts any doubt on the Court's holding with respect to the lack of merit in the plaintiffs' claims in this case. A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/inWOJefrom Leagle.com. Mark Geroulo, Plaintiff, represented by Ronen Sarraf -- ronen@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile, LLP, Andrew Eugene Lencyk -- alencyk@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, Joseph Gentile -- joseph@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile LLP, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Mark Peter Kindall -- mkindall@izardnobel.com -- IZARD NOBEL LLP, Matthew Alexander Smith -- msmith@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle Celia Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Izard Nobel LLP, Robert A. Izard -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel LLP, William Edward Bernarduci, IZARD NOBLE LLP & Robert I. Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP. Sherri M Harris, and Chad D Meisner, Movants, represented by Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP. Steven Goldstein, Movant, represented by Edwin J. Mills -- emills@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody & Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP. Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Administration Committee Of Citigroup, Inc., Richard Tazik, Jorge Bermudez, Michael Burke, Larry Jones, Thomas Santagelo, The Citigroup 401(K) Plan Investment Committee, Leo Viola, Donald Young, Robert Grogan, Robin Leopold, Glenn Regan, Christine Simpson, Timothy Tucker, Marcia Young, Sir Winfried F.W. Bischoff, Kenneth Derr, Roberto Hernandez, Robert Rubin, Franklin Thomas, C. Michael Armstrong, Alain J.P. Belda, John M. Deutch, Andrew N. Liveris, Anne M. Mulcahy, Vikram S. Pandit, Richard D. Parsons, Judith Rodin, Lawrence R. Ricciardi,and Robert L. Ryan, Defendants, represented by Brad Scott Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lewis Richard Clayton -- lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Susanna Michele Buergel - sbuergel@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Steven Muehlgay, ADR Provider, Frederick Winfield, All Plaintiffs, represented by Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9945 Industry is recalling No Name and Barber Foods brands uncooked stuffed chicken products from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume and distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes should not sell or use the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the location where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- No Name Chicken Parmesan 284 g 2016 FE 17 0 60383- Stuffed Breaded 2016 FE 23 80483 1 Chicken Breast Cutlettes - Uncooked No Name Ham & Cheese 284 g 2016 FE 19 0 60383- Stuffed Breaded 2016 FE 26 68108 1 Chicken Breast 2016 MR 02 Cutlettes - Uncooked No Name Garlic Butter 284 g 2016 FE 19 0 60383- Stuffed Breaded 2016 FE 26 68109 8 Chicken Breast 2016 MR 02 Cutlettes - Uncooked No Name Broccoli & Cheese 284 g 2016 FE 19 0 60383- Stuffed Breaded 2016 FE 26 68107 4 Chicken Breast 2016 MR 02 Cutlettes - Uncooked Barber Foods Raw Stuffed 1.13 2016 MR 01 N/A* Chicken Breasts - kg Correction Cordon Swiss (ITM. 824695) Barber Foods Stuffed Breasts 3.4 kg 2016 MA 10 60073461- of Chicken - 955037 Cordon Swiss Barber Foods Raw Stuffed 1.13 2016 FE 18 N/A* Chicken Breasts kg Correction - Broccoli & Cheese (ITM. 924699) Barber Foods A La Kiev - 4.08 Pack Date: 80073461- Breasts of kg 2015 FE 26* 954072 Chicken Correction Barber Foods Stuffed Breaded 284 g 2016 FE 17 N/A* Chicken Breast Correction Cutlettes/ Uncooked - Broccoli & Cheese Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/TpsrW4 COVISINT CORP: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Putative Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Covisint Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss two putative class actions, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us, our directors and former directors, and certain of our officers and former officers alleging violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO and seeking unspecified damages. These lawsuits have been consolidated." "On October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration statement contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of material facts related to the Company's projected revenues for fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements regarding the Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known trends, uncertainties and significant risk factors as required to be disclosed by Regulation S-K. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. "We believe the Complaint is without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend it. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty. Should we fail to prevail in this legal matter, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. We currently have no other pending litigation," the Company said. CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap Parking ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-03867 (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act's regulations regarding handicap parking. CVS Caremark Corporation operates a pharmacy at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. Demetri A. Braynin, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RA YZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com dbraynin@kalraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com gwells@cwg-law.com CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Trims Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge George H. King ruled on the motions to dismiss and the motion to substitute party filed in the case captioned In Re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, CASE NO. CV 14-1956-GHK (PJWX) (C.D. Cal.). On October 1, 2014, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC") was filed by Deepak Gupta, Randall S. Pettit and Diane D. Pettit, who sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired CytRx publicly traded securities between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014. The complaint brought claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)-(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5(a)-(c), as well as claims under Sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1993 against the underwriters for CytRx's January 31, 2014 Secondary Offering. The CytRx defendants and underwriter defendants separately moved to dismiss the CCAC. Judge King granted in part and denied in part the motions as follows: "(1) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rule 10b- 5(b) claim is GRANTED as to Defendant Haen and as to all other named Defendants on the statements found in DreamTeam articles. This Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim against Kriegsman, Caloz, and CytRx is DENIED in all other respects." "(2) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) claim is DENIED." "(3) Both Motions as to Plaintiffs' Section 12(a)(2) claim are GRANTED." "(4) Both Motions as to Plaintiffs' Section 11(a) claim are DENIED." "(5) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Sections 15, 20(a), and 20(b) control person liability claims is DENIED." Judge King gave the plaintiffs 30 days within which to file a First Amended CCAC, should they elect to do so. Judge King also granted the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Shirley Selter for Marvin Selter as defendant. On November 10, 2014, the CytRx defendants had filed a Notice of Death of Party regarding Marvin Selter's death. The Notice identified Shirley Selter as Selter's "representative." A copy of the July 13, 2015 civil minutes is available at http://is.gd/o3jg25from Leagle.com. Bangzheng Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA & Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick and Foti LLP. Deepak Gupta, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP, Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Melinda A Nicholson, Kahn Swick and Foti LLC, Michael J Palestina, Kahn Swick and Foti LLC & Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Victor Perri, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Chang, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,Howard G Smith, Law Offices of Howard G Smith, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Hyun Dong Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Mitchell Kahn, Brent Reed, and Gordon Niedermayer, Movants, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP & Patrice L Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody. Michael D Gore, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith, Brodsky and Smith LLC &Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP. Kisuk Cho, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA &Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP. John Corbitt, Movant, represented by Elaine Chang, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP. The CytRx Investor Group, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon -- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Reed R Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Betsy C Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP. CytRx Investor Group II, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. Cytrx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander Robert Safyan -- asafyan@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP & Clifford H Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP. Steven A. Kriegsman, Defendant, represented by Allen L Lanstra - allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Peter Bradley Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP & Thomas Jerome Nolan -- thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. John Y. Caloz, David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Joseph Rubinfeld, and Richard L. Wennekamp, Defendants, represented by Thomas Jerome Nolan, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Thomas Michael Meyer, Defendant, represented by Steven M Goldsobel, Law Offices of Steven M Goldsobel. Jefferies LLC, Aegis Capital Corporation, and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Defendants, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada - charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Lucy Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & John Warren Rissier -- warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & John Warren Rissier, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reiferson" Suit Over Cox Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Henry L. Reiferson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11295 (Del. Ch., July 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Dealertrack by Cox Automotive, Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides web-based software solutions and services to the automotive industry. Cox Automotive, Inc. is a worldwide provider of remarketing services and digital marketing software solutions for the automotive ecosystem. 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 DELAWARE NORTH: Volunteer Files Suit vs. Concession Operators ------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Record.com reported that operators of concession stands at baseball games in St. Louis and Kansas City owe back wages to workers they recruited as volunteers, according to a class action complaint in federal court. Matthew Leonard, possibly of St. Louis, proposes to represent thousands who thought they volunteered at Busch and Kauffman stadiums since 2012. Leonard toiled at Busch Stadium on May 30, 2013, according to a complaint he filed against Delaware North Companies Sport Service on May 29. "Plaintiff, like all other members of the class, has sustained legal injuries arising from defendant's conduct," attorney Rayan Paulus of Kansas City wrote for Leonard. "These 'volunteers' were recruited under the auspices they were raising money for various nonprofit organizations of their choice. "Defendant is in fact exploiting a volunteer labor force to avoid paying money for necessary labor, a privilege not afforded for- profit companies under the Fair Labor Standards Act." He wrote that a class action would be appropriate because, "common questions of fact and law predominate over any individual questions that may arise." "[I]f the size and individual class members' claims are small, their aggregate volume, coupled with the economies of scale in litigating similar claims on a common basis, will enable this case to be litigated as a class action on a cost effective basis," he wrote. Paulus proposed to certify two classes, one seeking the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and one seeking the Missouri minimum of $7.65. He wrote that Leonard retained attorneys who are highly skilled and experienced in complex and class action litigation. Jeremy Hollingshead and John Eccher, Paulus' colleagues at Hollingshead, Paulus and Eccher in Clayton, placed their names on the complaint. They filed it at Cole County circuit court, in Jefferson City, but Delaware North counsel Douglas King of Clayton asserted federal jurisdiction on June 26. King removed the suit to Western Missouri district court in Jefferson City, and he asked that court to transfer it to Eastern Missouri district court in St. Louis. He argued that the complaint didn't involve Kansas City at all. King wrote that all events giving rise to the action occurred in St. Louis and that all or nearly all witnesses reside there. He wrote that Delaware North does not operate concessions at either stadium, and that an indirect subsidiary operates at Busch but not Kauffman. "Plaintiff does not even claim to have volunteered or otherwise worked at Kauffman Stadium," King wrote. "Upon information and belief, plaintiff is a resident of St. Louis." Leonard's complaint identifies him as a Missouri resident. He signed a document on May 30, authorizing the filing and prosecution of claims contesting the failure to pay him wages. He specifically authorized negotiation for settlement of any and all claims. The document bears Leonard's signature but black lines cover his home address, his telephone number and his e-mail address. DETREX CORPORATION: Sued in Ohio Over Noxious Odor Emission ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Collins, Nancy DuFour, and Rosanna Maley, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Detrex Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-15-848209 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 13, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the noxious odors, fumes, and gases, emanating from and otherwise caused by the existence and negligent design, construction and ongoing operation and potential changes in production at the Detrex Chemical Manufacturing Facility. Detrex Corporation is a Michigan corporation that manufactures lubricant additives and specialty chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Connick, Esq. CONNICK LAWLLC 25550 Boulevard, Suite 101 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 364-05121 Facsimile: (216) 609-3446 E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com - and - Edward W. Cochran, Esq. 20030 Marchmont Road Shaker Heights, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 751-5546 E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com - and - Michael R. Blumenthal, Esq. David Waxman, Esq. WAXMAN BLUMENTHAL LLC Eton Tower 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 514-9400 Facsimile: (877) 468-7077 E-mail: mblumenthal@waxmanblumenthal.com davidwaxman@waxmanblumenthal.com DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: 4th Dist. Affirms Ruling in "Golba" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, 4th District, Div. Three affirmed the trial court's ruling in the case captioned LESLIE GOLBA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. G049611 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3). A class action was filed in May 2011 by Leslie Golba against Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. ("Dick's"), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971. The initial complaint listed plaintiff's counsel of record as Sean Reis, California State Bar No. 184044, and several other out-of- state attorneys, including lawyers of Siprut PC in Chicago, Illinois who were not members of the California State Bar nor admitted pro hac vice to practice law in California. In January 2013, Reis filed a consent to associate as plaintiff's counsel of record, Todd Atkins, an attorney from Siprut PC, who was a member of the California State Bar. The litigants reached a settlement which provided, among others, that Dick's would not oppose class counsel's application for court approval of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $210,000 and payment to plaintiff of an "incentive award" in the amount of $3,500. On December 4, 2013, the trial court issued a minute order on the motion for attorney fees. It awarded attorney fees and costs of $11,000 and awarded a plaintiff incentive award of $500. The court allowed attorney fees only for work performed by Reis and Atkins and denied attorney fees to out-of-state counsel. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by denying recovery of attorney fees for work performed by the Siprut PC out-of-state attorneys, holding that no one may recover compensation for services as an attorney at law in California unless that person was a member of the State Bar at the time those services were performed. The appellate court also affirmed the reduction of the plaintiff incentive award to $500 for spending only 16 hours over a period of about 24 months assisting with the case. A copy of the July 14, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/iUvKznfrom Leagle.com. Siprut, Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@siprut.com -- and Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Restraint of Trade Suit in Calif. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Ninth Inning Inc. d/b/a The Mucky Duck, for itself and for all others similarly situated v. DirecTV, Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15- cv-05261-BRO-JEM (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), arises out of the ongoing, unreasonable restraint of trade that the Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive deal to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out of market games. DirecTV, Holdings LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that provides digital television entertainment in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202)540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com - and - Irving Scher, Esq. Scott A. Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 165 Broadway, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: ischer@hausfeld.com smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Brian Murray, Esq. GLANCY PONGRAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lablert@glancylaw.com bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY PONGRAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com DIRECTV LLC: Removed "Flynn" Suit to Connecticut District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jean M. Flynn and James E. Stead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DirecTv, LLC, Case No. UWY-CV15-6027576-S, was removed from the Judicial District of Waterbury to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01053-JAM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts property damage claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Newman, Esq. BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP 747 Stafford Avenue Bristol, CT 06010 Telephone: (860) 583-5200 Facsimile: (860) 589-5780 E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Dallas Gordon, Esq. Nicholas Norton Ouellette, Esq. MATTHEW DALLAS GORDON LLC 836 Farmington Ave., Suite 221A West Hartford, CT 06119 Telephone: (860) 523-0471 Facsimile: (860) 523-0472 E-mail: mattgordon@mdgordonlaw.com nouellette@mdgordonlaw.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action was filed against the District of Columbia for its alleged failure to implement policies, procedures, and practices to ensure its compliance with its duties under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sections 1400, et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a); and District of Columbia ("D.C.") law. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the District's liability through 2007 with respect to each subclass's claims, and a motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the District's liability for the period from January 1, 2008, through April 6, 2011, with respect to each subclass's claims. Defendants, on the other hand, filed a motion for the exclusion of the expert reports and testimony of Drs. Carl Dunst and Leonard Cupingood, as well as a motion to grant summary judgment in its favor as to the claims of all plaintiffs from March 22, 2010 to the present. In a June 10, 2015 memorandum opinion, which is available at http://is.gd/Jo4tqBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Royce C. Lamberth: -- granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their IDEA and D.C. law claims as to the period through 2007, but denied summary judgment for plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims; -- granted plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c) from 2008 through April 6, 2011 as to their IDEA and D.C. law claims, but denied as to all Rehabilitation Act claims; -- denied defendants' motion to exclude opinions and testimony by plaintiffs' witnesses; -- denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply in response to defendants' reply in further support of their motion for summary judgment; -- denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the first, third, and fourth plaintiff subclass' claims under the IDEA and D.C. law; -- granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all of the second plaintiff subclass' claims under the IDEA and D.C. law after March 22, 2010; and -- granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims under the Rehabilitation Act for all plaintiff subclasses after March 22, 2010. Remaining for trial are plaintiffs' claims under the Rehabilitation Act for the period prior to March 22, 2010 as to each plaintiff subclass, and plaintiffs' claims under the IDEA and D.C. law from April 6, 2011 to present as to the first, third, and fourth plaintiff subclasses. The case is captioned DL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 05-1437 (D.D.C.). DJ ENGINEERING: Court Decertifies Engineer Class ------------------------------------------------ District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Action and Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JONATHAN SWARTZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. DJ ENGINEERING, INC., and REZAUL CHOWDHURY, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-01029-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.). A lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against defendants DJ Engineering ("DJE") and its Chief Executive Officer, Rezaul Chowdhury. The complaint alleged that defendants improperly classified plaintiffs, who are former employees of DJE, as salaried employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements. On September 24, 2014, the court conditionally certified the following class of employees: (1) all employees whom defendants deemed exempted as administrative, executive or professional employees (the "Deduction Class"); and (2) all engineers who worked in the Engineering Department whom the defendants deemed to be exempt professional employees (the "Engineer Class"). All employees in both classes are those who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek and who worked at DJE at any time from January 19, 2010, through January 21, 2013. Defendants sought an order decertifying both of the conditionally- certified classes. They also sought summary judgment on the claims asserted by both classes. Judge Crabtree referred to the Thiessen factors in ruling on the defendants' Motion to Decertify: (1) disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations. Judge Crabtree concluded that each of the three Thiessen factors favors allowing the Deduction Class' claims to proceed as a collective action and denied the defendants' motion to decertify this class. He however found differently for the Engineer Class and granted the defendants' motion to decertify this class. As to the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Crabtree denied the portion thereof seeking summary judgment on plaintiff's claims alleging improperly salary deductions. However, he granted the portion on plaintiff Jonathan Swartz' claim alleging that he was misclassified as an exempt professional. A copy of the July 9, 2015 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/J1QBKyfrom Leagle.com. Jonathan Swartz, Plaintiff, represented by Larry G. Michel -- lmichel@kenberk.com -- Kennedy, Berkley, Yarnevich, & Williamson, Chtd, James M. Kaup, Kaup Law Office & Michael M. Shultz, Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz. Claude Riggins, Saeed Mansouri, David Haul, Vien Nguyen, David McDonald, Michael D. Clift, and Ramin K. Ranjbar, Plaintiffs, represented by Larry G. Michel, Kennedy, Berkley, Yarnevich, & Williamson, Chtd & Michael M. Shultz, Law Firm of Michael M. Shultz. D-J Engineering, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, and Rezaul Chowdhurry, Defendants, represented by Terry L. Mann -- tlmann@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP. DOLGENCORP LLC: "Farr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Cheryl Farr, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DolgenCorp, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00142 (N.D. Fla., July 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dolgencorp, LLC is a Kentucky corporation with a retail store in Waldo, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew William Birk, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st St Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com ENTRE CORP: Faces "Deas" Suit in M.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Matoya Deas, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. Entre Corp, d/b/a Dovuto Collection Services. Case No. 3:15-cv- 00874-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Weiss, Esq. WEISS LAW GROUP, PA 5531 N University Dr Ste 103 Coral Springs, FL 33067 Telephone: (954) 573-2800 Facsimile: (954) 573-2798 E-mail: jason@jswlawyer.com FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Fairway Group Holdings Corp. continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2015. "In February and March 2014, three purported class action lawsuits alleging the violation of the federal securities laws were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for our initial public offering," the Company said. The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv- 0950. On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants. "The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus for our initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding our business and financial results," the Company said. "On September 5, 2014, we and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On January 20, 2015, the Magistrate appointed by the district judge to whom the case was assigned to review the motions and make a recommendation to the judge recommended that our and the other defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. "We filed an objection to the Magistrate's recommendation. In March 2015, the district judge to whom the case was assigned notified the plaintiffs and defendants to refile the complaint and motion to dismiss in light of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. All revised filings were required to be made by June 30, 2015. Although we believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit." FAIRWAY GROUP: Agreed in Principle to Settle Wage and Hour Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fairway Group Holdings Corp. has agreed in principle with the plaintiffs in a wage and hour class action to settle the matter, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2015. "In May 2014, a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former officers and employees," the Company said. "This suit alleged, among other things, that certain of our past and current employees were not properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In May 2015, we agreed in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the matter without material financial consequence." FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Naula and Enrique Tizol, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Fiorentino Ristorante, Inc. d/b/a Fiorentino's Ristorante, Anthony Fiorentino and Helen Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04100 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at 313 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York 11223. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com FLASH CATERING: "Notarmuzi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shayna Notarmuzi v. Flash Catering LLC d/b/a Flash Beach Grille, and Anita C. Breinig, Case No. 9:15-cv-80957-RLR (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Flash Beach Grille restaurant in Martin County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Allan Isaacs, Esq. GARY A ISAACS, P.A. Suite 400, 712 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, FL 33408-7146 Telephone: (561) 844-3600 Facsimile: (561) 842-4104 E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net FLYNN'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Distribute Workers Tips, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Kropis and all others similarly situated v. Sean M. Downes, John T. Downes, John Doherty, Flynn's Restaurant Group d/b/a Flynn's Irish Pub, Three Irishmen, Inc. d/b/a Flynn's Irish Pub, and Flynn's Cedarville Restaurant Group d/b/a Flynn's Irish Pub, Case No. SUCV2015-02117 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to distribute full proceeds of gratuities and tips to service bartenders and service employees. The Defendants own and operate pubs and restaurants at three locations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Messinger, Esq. REGAN, LANE & MESSINGER LLP 41 Winter Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (857)277-0902 Facsimile: (617)778-9742 E-mail: Rob@reganlanemessinger.com FMS INC: N.D. Ill. Judge Throws Out "Gonzalez" FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Ruben Castillo granted the motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned SERGIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FMS, INC., Defendant, NO. 14 C 9424 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.). On November 24, 2014, Sergio Gonzalez brought a putative class action against FMS, Inc. ("FMS"), alleging that the latter violated Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending him a dunning letter that displayed a fifteen-digit number on the envelope. The Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the numbers on the envelope did not violate the FDCPA because they did not disclose that the mailing was from a debt collector or otherwise invade Gonzalez's privacy. In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Castillo held that the provision of the FDCPA was only intended to prohibit markings that could be considered unfair or unconscionable, not those that are innocuous or benign. Judge Castillo found that because the string of numbers appearing on the envelope is benign, it did not violate Section 1692f(8). Thus, Gonzalez has failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA. A copy of the July 6, 2015 report and memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/hI4yhUfrom Leagle.com. Sergio Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jacob Wood, Wood Finko & Thompson P.C., Andrew Finko, Wood Finko & Thompson P.C. & Bryan Paul Thompson, Wood Finko & Thompson, P.C.. FMS, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Kevin Schultz -- jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLP & Daniel W. Pisani -- dpisani@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel. FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Class Suit Over Power Steering Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss filed in the case captioned WILLIAM PHILIPS et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV- 02989-LHK (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div.). A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Ford Motor Company by William Philips, Jaime Goodman, Allison Colburn and her son Ian Colburn. The California Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of statewide consumers who purchased or leased Ford Fusion vehicles, model years 2010 through 2014, or Ford Focus vehicles, model years 2012 through 2014, which were alleged to be equipped with a defective Electronic Power Assisted Steering ("EPAS") system. On April 30, 2015, Ford filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that: (1) California Plaintiffs have waived or abandoned various claims, (2) California Plaintiffs' are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, (3) California Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead their fraud-based claims, (4) California Plaintiffs' Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims must fail because they have failed to allege a "transaction" under the meaning of the statute, (5) California Plaintiffs' equitable claims must be dismissed because California Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. Ford also asked the court to strike references to "nationwide" claims from the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Judge Koh found the matter suitable for decision without oral arguments under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). He ruled on Ford's Motion to Dismiss as follows: -- granting with prejudice, as to Plaintiff Ian Colburn; -- denying, as to California Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent concealment and CLRA claims for damages; -- granting without prejudice, as to California Plaintiffs' Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims and CLRA claims for injunctive relief; and -- denying Ford's request to strike the nationwide claims from the SAC. A copy of the July 7, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/VFn9Pffrom Leagle.com. William Philips, Phillip Clay Cecil, Robert Halsey, Temple Halsey, Performance Fire Protection, LLC, and Jason Wilkinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Niall A Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C. & Roland K. Tellis - rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C.. Alison Colburn, and Ian Colburn, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.. Jaime Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. & Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Andrew L. Chang - achang@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Dustin Alan Lane -- dlane@seippflick.com -- Seipp Flick Hosley LLP, Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Todd Andrew Croftchik -- tcroftchik@seippflick.com -- Seipp, Flick, Hosley LLP. FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Soliz, individually and for others similarly situated v. Frank's International, NV & Timco Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-00296 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an oil field service company that is one of the world's largest providers of tubular services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com FXCM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders (the "Class") who purchased shares of FXCM, Inc. ("FXCM" or the "Company") (NYSE: FXCM) common stock between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015 (the "Class Period"). FXCM provides online foreign exchange ("FX") trading and related services to retail and institutional customers worldwide. The Company acts as an agent between retail customers and a collection of global banks and financial institutions by making foreign currency markets for customers trading in foreign exchange spot markets. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, FXCM and certain of its executive officers issued a series of materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations and the strength of its financial prospects, while concealing significant weaknesses concerning its core business. The Complaint alleges that Defendants' Class Period statements were materially false and/or misleading when made because they misleadingly omitted, among other things: (1) that the Company's agency model did not insulate FXCM's customers or the Company itself from financial risk; (2) the true potential risk to the Company posed by market volatility; (3) that the Company did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital reserves; and (4) that Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and growth lacked a reasonable basis. On January 16, 2015, FXCM announced that it had been extended a $300 million loan by Leucadia National Corp. in order to stave off a regulatory default and possible bankruptcy. The terms of the loan were described as "highly punitive" and wiped out nearly all shareholder value in FXCM. Trading of the Company's stock was suspended until January 20, 2015. When the Company's stock resumed trading, it declined nearly 90% in value, from a pre-halt closing price of $12.63 per share on January 16, 2015 to a closing price of $1.60 per share on January 20, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who invested in FXCM common stock during the Class Period. If you invested in FXCM common stock as described above, and lost money on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than July 7, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. GLOBE LIFE: Removed "Proctor" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Michael Proctor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-15-00838, was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma County to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00750-W to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under alleged violation of an insurance contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Engel, Esq. Steven S. Mansell, Esq. MANSELL & ENGEL PC 101 Park Ave, Suite 665 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4100 Facsimile: (405) 232-4140 E-mail: mansell-engel@coxinet.net mansell-engel@coxinet.net The Defendant is represented by: John D. Russell, Esq. Steven J. Adams, Esq. FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS 321 S Boston Ave, Suite 800 Tulsa, OK 74103-3318 Telephone: (918) 599-0621 Facsimile: (918) 583-9659 E-mail: jrussell@gablelaw.com sadams@gablelaw.com - and - Tammy D. Barrett, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS 100 W 5th St, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103-4217 Telephone: (918) 595-4851 E-mail: tbarrett@gablelaw.com HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karisma Torres and Edna Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02311-G (N.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation provides rental equipment for heavy construction, industrial, government projects, homeowners as well as used equipment for sale. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg S. Gober, Esq. BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, LLP 421 W. Third St., Suite 900 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 334-0800 Facsimile: (817) 334-0574 E-mail: greggober@bhilaw.com HOME DEPOT: At Least 57 Class Actions Filed Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that at least 57 class actions have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada, and other claims may be asserted against the Company on behalf of customers, payment card brands, payment card issuing banks, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising from the Data Breach. The U.S. class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That court ordered that the individual class actions be administratively closed in favor of the filing of consolidated class action complaints on behalf of customers and financial institutions allegedly harmed by the Data Breach. In addition, several state and federal agencies, including State Attorneys General, are investigating events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and the Company's responses. The Company is cooperating in the governmental investigations, and the Company may be subject to fines or other obligations. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, the Company is not able to estimate the costs, or range of costs, related to these matters because the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. The Company has not concluded that a loss from these matters is probable; therefore, the Company has not recorded an accrual for litigation, claims and governmental investigations related to these matters in the first quarter of fiscal 2015. The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid on these actions, claims and investigations could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods. Future Costs The Company expects to incur significant legal and other professional services expenses associated with the Data Breach in future periods. The Company will recognize these expenses as services are received. Costs related to the Data Breach that may be incurred in future periods may also include liabilities to payment card networks for reimbursements of credit card fraud and card reissuance costs; liabilities related to the Company's private label credit card fraud and card reissuance costs; liabilities from current and future civil litigation, governmental investigations and enforcement proceedings; future expenses for legal, investigative and consulting fees; and incremental expenses and capital investments for remediation activities. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid on these services and claims could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods. Insurance Coverage The Company maintained $100 million of network security and privacy liability insurance coverage in fiscal 2014, above a $7.5 million deductible, to limit the Company's exposure to losses such as those related to the Data Breach. As of May 3, 2015, the Company had received initial payments totaling $30 million of insurance reimbursements under the fiscal 2014 policy, and expects to receive additional payments. In the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company entered into a new policy, with $100 million of network security and privacy liability insurance coverage, above a $10 million deductible, to limit the Company's exposure to similar losses. ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Class Suit v. School District 303 Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the class action captioned, JIM DONOVAN and STEVEN SCHULZE, Individually and in Representative Capacity of All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 303, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 2-14-0704 (Ill. App. Ct., 2nd Dist.). On October 10, 2013, a complaint was filed against Community Unit School District 303 alleging that when it adopted the 2011 Plan that combined Davis Elementary and Richmond Elementary, it failed to give the parents of the children forced to attend Richmond a "choice" to transfer them to another school, "in contravention of the law." Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB"), any school that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress ("AYP") for 2 consecutive years was required to allow its students' parents to transfer them to a school that had achieved AYP. In the fall of 2011, Richmond had failed to achieve AYP for 3 consecutive years. On February 26, 2014, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, stating that plaintiffs' complaint was barred by section 2-103 of the Tort Immunity Act, and that the School Code and its regulations do not "give rise to an implied [private cause] of action for damages." The appellate court determined that the trial court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss, based on section 2-103 of the Tort Immunity Act. A copy of the July 16, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/NdHLl3from Leagle.com. INSULET CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray reminds investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors in Insulet Corp. ("Insulet" or the "Company"), who purchased Insulet securities between February 27, 2013 and April 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Insulet investors had until July 6, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the "OmniPod System"), an insulin infusion system for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The complaint filed against the Company alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing slower demand for its products; (2) that the Company was facing issues with its sales and marketing efforts; (3) that, as a result, the Company experienced unevenness in its financial performance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities after disclosing the decline in its revenues, investors have suffered significant losses and damages. If you purchased Insulet shares or have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by e- mail 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. JAPAN: Faces "You" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged War-Time Sex Slavery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hee Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Japan, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv- 03257-KAW (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), arises from the alleged war- time sex slavery by the Japanese government before and during World War II. The complaint asserts that Japan enslaved and perpetrated atrocities upon the Plaintiff during the 1940-1945 periods in violation of international and domestic laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hyungjin Kim, Esq. JEONG SE LAW FIRM 15th Floor Opulence Building Seoul, KR 137893 Telephone: (822) 581-4040 E-mail: intercle@gmail.com KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Must Face Former Players' Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the amended Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the case captioned AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00608-JCS, RELATED CASE NO. 14-CV-03289-JCS (N.D. Cal.). On February 7, 2014, former Minor League baseball players filed a putative class action, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws against Bud Selig (the former Commissioner of Baseball), the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball doing business as Major League Baseball ("MLB") and MLB's member franchises. On May 20, 2015, the Court dismissed 8 MLB franchises for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving 22 franchises in the case as defendants. The Franchise Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in Part for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. Judge Spero denied the motion. He found that it is appropriate to address the issues of class standing and/or sufficiency of the class claims after class certification or, where applicable, in the context of the class certification determination. A copy of the July 13, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/lbP98Sfrom Leagle.com. Aaron Senne, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron Michael Zigler -- azigler@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan -- bshiftan@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brian P. Murray - bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- George Andrew Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery LLC, Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancyla.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Rachel Geman -- rgeman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Randall K Pulliam -- rpulliam@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Stephen Matthew Tillery -- stillery@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP. Michael Liberto, Oliver Odle, Brad McAtee, Craig Bennigson, Matt Lawson, Kyle Woodruff, Ryan Kiel, Kyle Nicholson, Brad Stone, Matt Daly, Aaron Meade, Justin Murray, Jake Kahaulelio, Ryan Khoury, Dustin Pease, Jeff Nadeau, Jon Gaston, and Brandon Henderson, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP, Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP. Tim Pahuta, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis,Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP, Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP. Lee Smith, Joseph Newby, Ryan Hutson, Matt Frevert, Roberto Ortiz, Witer Jimenez, Kris Watts, Mitch Hilligoss, Matt Gorgen, Brett Newsome, Jake Opitz, and Daniel Britt, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis, Anne Brackett Shaver, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brian P. Murray, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP, Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP. Yadel Marti, Edgardo Baez, Helder Velaquez, Jorge Jimenez, Jorge Minyety, Edwin Maysonet, and Jose Diaz, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Samuel Kornhauser, Law Offices of Samuel Kornhauser, Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brian A. David, Law Offices of Brian David, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP & Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP. Nick Giarraputo, Lauren Gagnier, Leonard Davis, Gaspar Santiago, Grant Duff, Omar Aguilar, Mark Wagner, Matt Lewis, David Quinowski, Brandon Pinckney, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP & Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., Miami Marlins, L.P., San Francisco Baseball Associates, LLC, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Allan Huber Selig, Defendant, represented by Elise M. Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Neil H. Abramson -- nabramson@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Adam M Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, D. Gregory Valenza, Shaw Valenza LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer Rose LLP, Howard L. Ganz -- hganz@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel Santoro - rsantoro@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP. Angels Baseball LP, St. Louis Cardinals, LLC, Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Cincinnati Reds, LLC, Houston Baseball Partners LLC, Athletics Investment Group, LLC, Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership, Padres L.P., San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P., Minnesota Twins, LLC, Detroit Tigers, Inc., Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, Sterling Mets L.P., AZPB L.P., New York Yankees P'ship, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC, Rangers Baseball, LLC, Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc., Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, L.P., and Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC, Defendants, represented by Elise M. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, D. Gregory Valenza, Shaw Valenza LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer Rose LLP, Howard L. Ganz, Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel Santoro, Proskauer Rose LLP. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Pittsburgh Associates, LP, and Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP, The, Defendants, represented by Elise M. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer Rose LLP, Howard L. Ganz, Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel Santoro, Proskauer Rose LLP. KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Del. Over Allergan Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Cohodes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 11289 (Del. Ch., July 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair price. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic medicine market in the United States and internationally. Allergan PLC is based in Dublin with U.S. headquarters in Parsippany, N.J. Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that provides treatments in dermatology, aesthetics, eye care and for cardiovascular disease. 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 - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4568 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Patrick W. Powers, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 North Central Expressway Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 Facsimile: (214) 239-8901 E-mail: info@Powerstaylor.com LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP To Refund Overcharged Customers ---------------------------------------------------- Mike Reicher, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reported that The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has agreed to refund what it overcharged customers because of its faulty billing system, according to a court document. The tentative settlement in one of four billing class-action lawsuits would ensure payment, however, a DWP official said the agency would credit consumers who were overbilled. An attorney representing plaintiffs in the first class-action suit filed accuses the city of negotiating in secret and cherry-picking the plaintiff with less experience against the DWP. He also disputes the DWP's claim that the tentative agreement applies to the other cases. "It may be that it's a fine settlement, but just none of this makes any sense," said Tim Blood, an attorney who in 2012 won an overbilling class-action suit against the department. "The fact that the city does not want to share the basic terms of the settlement with the lawyers who brought the cases is just another example of its lack of transparency." Attorneys representing the DWP didn't tell Blood or other plaintiffs' attorneys they were meeting with lawyers for Van Nuys resident Antwon Jones, Blood said in a court filing. On June 11 and June 12, a retired U.S. District Court judge held mediation sessions between Jones' attorneys and the city. Afterward, the city told the court it had reached a tentative settlement that would cover nearly all of the billing cases. But the four class-action suits present varying demands. Blood's suit would require the DWP to cease overbilling and identify victims who qualify for refunds. Jones' case does not specifically call for changes to department billing and doesn't specify how the department would identify who gets the refunds. Jones is represented by the Ohio-based personal injury law firm Landskroner Grieco Merriman and Encino lawyer Michael J. Libman. An attorney from Landskroner said he couldn't comment, and Libman did not return messages. The four lawsuits stem from the department's troubled customer service computer system launched in September 2013. For thousands of customers, it sent inaccurately estimated bills, or no bills at all. When their statements were corrected, the system sometimes sent huge tabs that incorrectly bumped people into higher rate tiers, resulting in overbilling. Former power chief Randy Howard said last August that overbilled accounts would be credited. Based on the outline of the settlement, the department would review all customer accounts since the billing system was launched and would refund all overcharges resulting from the system's billing errors. No other details were released. LOUISANA: 5th Cir. Rules on Inmate's Appeal ------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal from the trial court's ruling in the case captioned, ELZIE BALL; NATHANIEL CODE; JAMES MAGEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; ANGELA NORWOOD, Warden of Death Row; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees, NO. 14-30067 (5th Cir.). Three inmates sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections and various prison officials in their official capacities, claiming that the heat they endure at the Louisiana prison facility during the summer months violates the 8th Amendment because of their pre- existing medical problems. They also asserted that the failure to provide air conditioning violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court sustained the prisoners' 8th Amendment claims, rejected their disability claims, and issued an injunction effectively ordering the defendants to install air conditioning throughout death row. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Affirmed the district court's conclusion that housing the prisoners in very hot cells without sufficient access to heat-relief measures, while knowing that each suffers from conditions that render him extremely vulnerable to serious heat-related injury, violates the 8th Amendment. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's rejection of the disability claims, finding that the claims are insupportable as a matter of law even under the expanded legal definition of disability. The overwhelming majority of the testimony related to the future risk of heatstroke, not on any limitations the prisoners presently experience. However, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district court's injunction for reconsideration. It held that the said injunction provides an unnecessary type of relief and applies beyond the three plaintiffs, and thus violates the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A copy of the July 8, 2015 decision is available at http://is.gd/VbwGRJfrom Leagle.com. MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: FLSA Case Wins Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DE IVORY SMITH, ET AL., SECTION "B"(2), v. MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14- 2623 (E.D. La.), District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). On November 17, 2014, a complaint was filed by De Ivory Smith and Marlie Trujillo against Manhattan Management Co., LLC and Berk- Cohen Associates, LLC for alleged violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Smith and Trujillo resided and worked as after-hours telephone dispatchers at the Forest Isles Apartment Complex owned and operated by the defendants. Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a class for purposes of bringing a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). They also requested that the Court exercise its discretion to facilitate notice to potential class members by approving their proposed notice plan. In an order dated July 6, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/BboTnLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle granted the plaintiffs' motion, in part, so as to conditionally certify a class composed of telephone dispatchers and Unit 10/property monitors, while excising the pool monitors. Judge Lemelle, however, denied plaintiffs' motion, in part, as to that portion requesting approval of the proposed notice plan. He however directed the parties to meet, confer, and thereafter submit to the Court a joint proposal of notice no later than 21 days of entry of the Court's order. De Ivory Smith, and Marlie Trujillo, Plaintiffs, represented by Jody Forester Jackson -- jjackson@jackson-law.net -- Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson -- mjackson@jackson-law.net -- Jackson & Jackson. Manhattan Management Company, LLC, and Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Loretta G. Mince -- lmince@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood, Jeanette Amedee Donnelly -- jdonnelly@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood & Rebecca Sha -- rsha@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood. MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore denied the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in the case captioned MARK SUESZ, Plaintiff, v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, NO. 1:12-CV-01517-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.). On October 18, 2012, Mark Suesz filed his original complaint, alleging that the debt collection practices of Med-1 Solutions, Inc. ("Med-1") violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Suesz moved for leave to file his First Amended Complaint, proposing two changes to the original complaint: (1) to change the putative class's definition, and (2) to add Tressa Bowman as an additional plaintiff. The motion, however, was denied as moot insofar as it seeks to modify the putative class definition after the court granted plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Amended Motion for Class Certification without Prejudice. In denying the motion, Judge Dinsmore held that the statute of limitations for Bowman's alleged injury began to run from the filing by Med-1 of the original complaint against her on October 11, 2011 in Pike Township small claims court. As a result, the statute of limitations for Bowman's claim expired on October 11, 2012, and the claim was thus already time-barred when Suesz filed his original complaint on October 18, 2012. A copy of the July 6, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/cSOXUhfrom Leagle.com. MARK SUESZ, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle R. Teggelaar, EDELMAN COMBS & LATTURNER & Daniel A. Edelman, EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC. TRESSA K. BOWMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman, EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Ward Levi -- nlevi@k-glaw.com -- KIGHTLINGER & GRAY & Peter A. Velde, KIGHTLINGER & GRAY. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Jill Z. Julian, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & Kerala Thie Cowart, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. MEXICAN RADIO: "Spiciarich" Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the motion to transfer litigation to the Northern District of New York in the case captioned ANDREW SPICIARICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEXICAN RADIO CORP., MEXICAN RADIO HUDSON, LLC, WILLIAM YOUNG and LORI SELDEN, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-9009 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.). On November 12, 2014, Andrew Spiciarich, on behalf of himself and other current and former tipped employees of defendants, sued the corporate and individual owners of two Mexican Radio Restaurants in New York City and Hudson, New York. The complaint alleged various wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Defendants moved to (1) dismiss for improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the action; (2) dismiss the complaint against Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC for insufficient service of process; (3) dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim; or (4) stay the litigation pending a Department of Labor investigation into similar claims. Judge Stein dismissed the motion as moot to the extent that defendants sought to dismiss the complaint against Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC for insufficient service of process because Spiciarich has remedied any deficiency in his service of process on Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC. However, Judge Stein found that defendants have shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) is warranted, and granted the motion insofar as it sought to transfer the litigation to the Northern District of New York. A copy of the July 10, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/4OTug3from Leagle.com. Andrew Spiciarich, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Scott Schaffer, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP & Arsenio David Rodriguez, Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP. Mexican Radio Corp., Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC, William Young, and Lori Selden, Defendants, represented by Dana Lynn Salazar -- dana@salazaresq.com -- Salazar and Erikson LLP. MISSION BAY: Bid for Class Certification Granted ------------------------------------------------ District Judge Susan Illston granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-05235-SI (N.D. Cal.) A putative class action was filed on November 12, 2013 against the defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200, for failing to compensate their employees the correct overtime rate and for failing to provide their employees meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants violated California Labor Code sections 203 and 226, by failing to pay employees the amount due them and failing to provide accurate wage stubs. Plaintiffs sought class certification for 163 care worker employees who provided companionship, therapy, and assistance to developmentally disabled individuals who were clients of defendants. They argued that defendants had a uniform policy in place regarding the payment of overtime and provision of meal and rest breaks for its employees. In a July 7, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/afh7i6from Leagle.com, Judge Illston granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. She found that the proposed classes met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a) for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. She also found that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements under Rule 23(b) for predominance and superiority. Horacio De Veyra Palana, Joan Soliven, Conchito Cabiles, and Alexander Yalung, Plaintiffs, represented by Phung Hoang Truong, Justice at Work Law Group, Tomas Eduardo Margain, CASA Legal & Huy Ngoc Tran, Justice at Work Law Group. Mission Bay Inc., and Print It Here And Copy, Inc., Defendants, represented by Reyna Elena Macias, WFBM, LLP & Scott A. Freedman, WFBM, LLP. MISSOURI: Court Dismisses Inmate's Complaint -------------------------------------------- District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. dismissed the amended complaint in the case captioned JOHN A. RICHMAN, Plaintiff, v. DWAYNE KEMPKER, Defendant, NO. 1:15CV63 SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Southeastern Div.). John Richman, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center ("SCC"), brought an action against Dwayne Kempker, Deputy Division Director of Adult Institutions for the Missouri Department of Corrections. Richman asserted a violation of his "due process rights". Richman sought leave to commence the action without payment of the required filing fee. Finding that Richman did not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee, Judge Limbaugh granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.50. Judge Limbaugh, however, dismissed the amended complaint for failing to state a claim for relief. He held that there is no violation of due process because Missouri state laws provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy for Richman's claim if he wishes to seek one in Missouri state court. A copy of the Juy 10, 2015 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/1csIHnfrom Leagle.com. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Certification Bid in CRT Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Conti granted the motion for class certification in the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS, MDL NO. 1917, NO. CV-07-5944-SC., CV-14-2058-SC (N.D. Cal.). In a Multidistrict Litigation case concerning allegations of a worldwide conspiracy to fix prices in the Cathode Ray Tube ("CRT") market, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") filed a motion for class certification with respect to defendants Thomson and Mitsubishi. Thomson settled and stipulated to class certification, pending hearing. Mitsubishi opposed the motion, and is the only remaining defendant. Upon completion of a "rigorous analysis" of the required elements of class certification, for good cause shown, Judge Conti found that all the threshold and minimum requirements of Rule 23(a)and 23(b)(3) have been met. The DPPs, however, were ordered to specifically identify the "affiliate[s]" in the class definition (and class notice) to enable the parties and class members to better determine who is in the class. A copy of the July 8, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/3r86o0from Leagle.com. "Thomson" refers to: Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA) ("Thomson SA") and Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.) ("Thomson Consumer"), and Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC) ("TDA"). Allied with Thomson is Defendant Videocon Industries, Ltd. ("Videocon"). "Mitsubishi" refers to: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.), and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.). Thomson, Videocon, and Mitsubishi are "Defendants." The other co-conspirators, with most of whom the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") have already settled, are: (a) Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. (collectively "Chunghwa"); (b) Daewoo International Corporation, Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd., Orion Electric Company ("Orion"), and Daewoo-Orion SocieteAnonyme (collectively "Daewoo/Orion"); (c) Hitachi Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), and Shenzhen SEG Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd. (collectively "Hitachi"); (d) Irico Group Corporation, Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd., and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. (collectively "Irico"); (e) LG Electronics, Inc. ("LGE"), LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. (collectively "LG"); (f) LP Displays International, Ltd. ("LPD"); (g) Panasonic Corporation, f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively "Panasonic"); (h) Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics Industries Ltd., Philips Electronics North America, Philips Consumer Electronics Co., Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., and Philips dba Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda. (collectively "Philips"); (i) Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. f/k/a Samsung Display Device Company ("Samsung SDI" or "SDI"), Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., and Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (collectively "Samsung"); (j) Thai CRT Company, Ltd.; (k) Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC, Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Display Devices (Thailand) Company, Ltd. (collectively "Toshiba"); (l) MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., f/k/a Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd., ("MTPD"); and (m) Bejing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. ("BMCC"). MOVADO GROUP: Individual Plaintiff Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Movado Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that an individual plaintiff filed on February 4, 2015, a complaint against the Company and several of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Complaint") as a purported class action, alleging that between March 26, 2014 and November 13, 2014, the Company made false and misleading statements about the Company's financial performance. The Complaint also claims that these alleged false and misleading statements resulted in the Company's stock trading at an artificially high price until November 14, 2014, when the Company issued a press release preliminarily announcing financial results and reducing its previous projections, after which the Company's stock price fell. The Company believes that the Complaint is meritless and it intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Company believes that it has valid legal defenses to all of the matters currently pending against it. These matters are inherently unpredictable and the resolutions of these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, management is unable to estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary loss, amounts covered by insurance or the financial impact that will result from such matters. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Hall" FDCPA Class Action Goes to Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment in the cases captioned VIRGINIA B. HALL, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 13-6563, 14-2257 (E.D. Pa.). Two actions were brought by Virginia B. Hall against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Champion Mortgage Company, Champion Mortgage, and their unnamed representatives. In the first action, which was brought on November 12, 2013 as a class action, Hall alleged that defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") through misleading statements in a letter involving a foreclosure notice. In the second action, an individual action, Hall alleged that defendants violated the FDCPA by directly contacting her with respect to a debt despite knowing that she was represented by counsel. On September 2, 2014, the defendants moved for summary judgment on both actions. Judge Robreno denied the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to both the class action and the individual action. However, he sua ponte dismissed the individual class action without prejudice because the plaintiff lacks standing and the court, therefore, has no subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. A copy of the July 6, 2015 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/erkmFpfrom Leagle.com. VIRGINIA B. HALL, Plaintiff, represented by ARKADY ERIC RAYZ -- Erayz@kalraylaw.com -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC, DMITRY A. BRAYNIN -- Dbraynin@kalraylawcom -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC & GERALD D. WELLS, III, CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, and CHAMPION MORTGAGE, Defendants, represented by MARTIN C. BRYCE, JR. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P. & S. CLIFFORD SACALIS -- sacaliss@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP. NESTLE USA: Faces "Gyorke-Takatri" Suit Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Gyorke-Takatri and Katie Silver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber Products Company, Case No. CGC15546850 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2015), arises from the Defendants' false and deceptive practices in deceiving consumers about the fruit and vegetable content and the nutritional and health qualities of Gerber Graduates Puffs. Nestle USA, Inc. is a Swiss corporation that does business in the United States and touts itself as the world's largest food company. Gerber Products Company is the best known baby food company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200 Telephone: (619) 235-5306 Facsimile: (815) 377-8419 E-mail: mzevin@aol.com - and - Stephen Gardner, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP Scott Kitner, Esq. 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 - and - John Roddy, Esq. Elizabeth Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 125 Summer Street 10th Floor, Suite 1030 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com eryan@baileyglasser.com NEW DOMINION: Okla. High Ct. Allows Earthquake Suit to Continue --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Wilmoth, writing for News Oklahoma, reported that a Prague resident injured in the magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 can continue her lawsuit in district court, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. The state's high court reversed a lower court's October 2014 decision to dismiss the case. Lincoln County District Court Judge Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood previously said the district court does not have jurisdiction and that the case should instead be handled by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, said district court is the proper arena for the case. "Because this case does not seek to reverse, review or modify an OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission) order, but simply seeks to recover damages, jurisdiction is proper in the district court," the Supreme Court said. Prague resident Sandra Ladra last summer filed the lawsuit against the operators of Lincoln County water disposal wells, claiming they caused the magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 that caused rock from her fireplace to land in her lap and injure her knee. The suit lists as defendants Tulsa-based New Dominion LLC; Cleveland, OK-based Spess Oil Co.; and 25 other unnamed companies. Ladra asked for more than $75,000 in actual damages, plus punitive damages. Representatives from New Dominion and Spess declined comment. "Ultimately the decision is for the jury to decide if the earthquake was attributed to the injection wells. We will offer scientific findings that the injections are along fault lines," Scott Poynter, Ladra's attorney, told The Oklahoman when the original case was filed. "Ultimately, we think we can meet our burden of proof, that we can persuade the jury that the earthquakes in and around Prague were the result of injection well activity." Poynter also has filed a potential class-action lawsuit led by Prague resident Jennifer Lin Cooper, seeking damages related to the 2011 Prague earthquake. Cooper is seeking class-action status to include people in Lincoln County and eight surrounding counties whose homes or home values have been damaged by the earthquakes. Seismic history Oklahoma has had a seismically active history. The state is crossed with thousands of fault lines and has experienced moderate and large earthquakes in the past. But the intensity of earthquakes has ballooned over the past few years. The seismicity rate in 2013 was 70 times greater than the rate before 2008 and rapidly grew to about 600 times greater, the Oklahoma Geological Survey said in April. The survey also said such a rapid increase is "very unlikely the result of a natural process." The Oklahoma Corporation Commission over the past few years has increased its focus on water disposal wells, especially in the areas where the recent earthquakes have been concentrated. In Oklahoma, the saltwater that comes up with oil and gas can be 10 times the amount of produced hydrocarbons. In some areas, such as the Mississippi Lime formation in north-central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, produced water can be up to 20 times the volume of oil and gas. The Corporation Commission has focused its efforts on water disposal wells that are drilled through the Arbuckle rock formation -- the deepest layer of sedimentary rock -- and into the underlying crystalline basement. The commission in March issued a directive to disposal well operators to prove they weren't injecting into the basement. If they were, operators were told to plug back the wells or reduce volumes or rates. Out of the 357 disposal wells included in the commission directive, 108 had plugged back by June 17, according to the Corporation Commission. Another 19 wells had plans to plug back, while 86 showed they weren't in contact with the basement. The rest reduced volumes or weren't injecting at this time. NISSIN FOODS: Court Trims "Guttman" Suit Over Noodles ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the case captioned VICTOR GUTTMANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSIN FOODS (U.S.A.) COMPANY, INC., Defendant, NO. C 15-00567 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Victor Guttmann filed a putative class action against Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc., alleging eight claims for relief: (1) the unfair prong of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., (2) nuisance under California Civil Code Sections 3749, et seq., (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (4) the unlawful prong of the California Unfair Competition Law, (5) the fraudulent prong of the California Unfair Competition Law, (6) the California False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., (7) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., and (8) breach of the express warranty that the noodles contained 0g trans-fat. The Defendant manufacturer moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Judge Alsup dismissed Guttmann's claims without leave to amend, except for his claims for violation of the unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Judge Alsup held that Guttmann has stated a plausible claim under the unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law, and Nissin has failed to show that claim is preempted by federal law. Judge Alsup also explained that for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), Guttmann's complaint has plausibly alleged that foods containing artificial trans-fat, such as Nissin's noodles, are not fit for human consumption, due to the myriad medical conditions to which they are linked. A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/2j28bkfrom Leagle.com. OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Joint Combined Motion in Limine ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Joint Combined Motion in Limine in the case captioned LORI SHAMBLIN, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla., Tampa Div.). On September 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed by Lori Shamblin against the defendants under the Consumer Protection Act after she received several unsolicited, autodialed calls to her cellular telephone urging her to vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Shamblin moved for class certification several times, but this was always denied by the court. Defendants sought an Order excluding evidence that this case was filed as a putative class action and "excluding any evidence relating to the 'additional calls' referred to in Shamblin's Second Amended Complaint. Judge Covington granted the Motion in Limine as to the class certification proceedings after determining that complex procedural proceedings, such as those undertaken at the Rule 23 class certification stage, pose a significant risk to junior confusion. She, however, denied the Motion as to "other calls" referenced in paragraph 25 of the Second Amendment Complaint. A copy of the July 13, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/QvqQeQfrom Leagle.com. Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat, Andrew L. Quiat, P.C., Jack D. McInnes -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP, Jeffrey M. Paskert -- jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- Mills Paskert Divers, PA, Joseph J. Mellon -- jmellon@mellonlaw.com -- The Mellon Law Firm, Mary F. Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm & Richard M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP. Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Debra R. Bernard -- Dbernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Elisabeth C. Frost -- Efrost@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Graham M Wilson -- Gwilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL, Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP & Rachel E. Fugate, Thomas & LoCicero, PL. DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Debra R. Bernard, Perkins Coie, LLP, Elisabeth C. Frost, Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL & Marc Erik Elias -- Melias@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP. New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Dale Thomas Golden, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL. American Association of Political Consultants, Amicus, represented by Patrick A. Traber -- ptraber@allendell.com -- Allen Dell, PA. Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli -- meditr@aol.com -- Peter J. Grilli, PA. OCWEN FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in "Adelson" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's appeal in the case captioned WENDY B. ADELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3707 (7th Cir.). Wendy Adelson sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and other companies involved with her home mortgage in a Michigan court, principally alleging that Ocwen's irregular handling of her loan resulted in an unlawful foreclosure action. The suit was eventually transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, the site of multidistrict litigation ("MDL") against Ocwen. Her suit became dormant, because the presiding judge believed that her suit was extinguished by another MDL case, a successful class action in which she was a class member. Adelson then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but was denied by the district judge. On appeal, the appellate court held that the district judge was incorrect in his belief regarding the extinguishment of Adelson's suit. However, it still denied Adelson's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because there was yet no final judgment in her individual lawsuit. The case involving Ocwen and its co- defendants that were transferred from Michigan to the Northern District of Illinois remains pending. A copy of the July 13, 2015 nonprecedential disposition is available at http://is.gd/RvvCsVfrom Leagle.com. OHANA MILITARY: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Pesticides Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA STREETER, KATIE ECKROTH, BOB BARBER, TIM JONES, RYAN ECKROTH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC; FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 14-00217 HG-KSC (D. Hawaii), District Judge Helen Gillmor denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, LLC. On April 3, 2014, a complaint was filed by Cara Barber, Melissa Jones, Melissa Streeter, and Katie Eckroth claiming that defendants did not disclose that pesticides had been confirmed in the soil at Marine Corps Base Hawaii and required remediation, and that defendants did not follow their own soil remediation plan and their construction efforts exposed plaintiffs to visible dust at Marine Corps Base Hawaii while they were tenants in defendants' housing. Defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City Residential Management, Inc. sought summary judgment in their favor, claiming that plaintiffs are unable to carry their burden at trial without expert testimony. Plaintiffs did not submit an expert witness disclosure by the deadline provided in the Scheduling Order. Judge Gillmor, however, concluded that defendants have not established that expert testimony is required for plaintiffs to meet their prima facie burden for their state law substantive claims. A copy of the July 9, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/l9GbMrfrom Leagle.com. Cara Barber, Melissa Jones, Melissa Streeter, Katie Eckroth, Bob Barber, Tim Jones, and Ryan Eckroth, Plaintiffs, represented by Malia R. Nickison-Beazley -- malia@revereandassociates.com -- Revere & Associates, Patrick Kyle Smith, Lynch, Hopper, Salzano & Smith, Sergio Salzano, Lynch, Hopper, Salzano & Smith LLP & Terrance M. Revere -- terry@revereandassociates.com -- Revere & Associates, LLLC. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City Residential Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Christine A. Terada -- cterada@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Lisa W. Munger -- lmunger@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP & Randall C. Whattoff -- rwhattoff@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP. OM GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Probes Acquisition by Apollo Funds ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are investigating the recent acquisition of OM Group Inc. OMG, by certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management LLC APO. Under the terms of the June 1, 2015 merger agreement, OM Group shareholders will receive $34.00 in cash for each share of OM Group common stock. Is the Proposed Acquisition Fair for OM Group Shareholders? On June 17, 2015, an OM Group investor filed a class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the company's proposed acquisition. The complaint alleges that the deal was made through an unfair negotiation process and that it improperly buys shareholders out of a company that is headed for success. Additionally, the complaint alleges that OM Group and its directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care, and full disclosure to the class by not considering other buyers before agreeing to the buyout. Apollo is attempting to acquire OM Group for the $34.00 merger consideration that is significantly below a $49.00 target price set by an APB Financial Group analyst in March 2015. Financial analysts at BB&T Capital Markets and Northcoast Research have also appraised OM Group stock above the merger consideration, with target prices of $37.00 and $35.00, respectively. Moreover, the merger consideration's 17.9% premium, based on OM Group's closing price on May 1, 2015, is well below the average one month premium of 27% for comparable transactions within the past five years. The class action suit is thus seeking class certification and is requesting the court to block the deal. OM Group shareholders interested in information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in securities litigation and shareholder rights law. The law firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Mitra" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Malloy Mitra and Brenda Manos, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Opengate Capital, LLC, OpenGate Capital Group LLC, OpenGate Capital Management LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02015-00790797, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01109 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff Malloy Mitra is represented by: Malloy Mitra PRO SE The Plaintiff is represented by: Brenda Manos PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com PENINSULA GRILL: Clement May Join FLSA Class Suit, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy denied the Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Nicholas Clement's Untimely Consent in the case captioned ANDREW BROWDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PENINSULA GRILL ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a HANK'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT and HENRY "HANK" L. HOLLIDAY, III, individually, Defendants, C.A. NO. 2:14-CV-4135-PMD (D.S.C., Charleston Div.). On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced against Hank's Seafood, seeking, inter alia, unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages pursuant to the collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On April 16, 2015, the parties filed a Consent Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and to Authorize Notice to Putative Class Members. On April 17, 2015, the Court granted the parties' Consent Motion, and potential plaintiffs were given an agreed-upon 45-day period to opt-in to the conditionally certified collective action by filing the requisite consent to join form. On June 11, 2015, shortly after the expiration of the notice period, plaintiff's counsel filed a Consent Form executed by Nicholas Clement. Defendants filed a motion to strike Clement's untimely filed Consent Form. Judge Duffy concluded that allowing Clement to join the collective action is both warranted and appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Clement's Consent Form was accepted by the court as filed as of the date that it was submitted to the court. A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/iYqAKffrom Leagle.com. Andrew Browder, Brian Walker, and Nicholas Clement, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce E Miller, Bruce E Miller Law Office. Henry L Holliday, III, and Peninsula Grill Associates LLC, Defendants, represented by Allan Riley Holmes -- aholmes@gibbs- holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes & Cheryl H Ledbetter -- cledbetter@gibbs-holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes. PENNY NEWMAN: Wins Initial Approval of Employee Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JESUS PALACIOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-01804-KJM-SAB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for an order preliminary approving a class settlement and conditionally certifying the settlement class. A class action lawsuit was filed against Penny Newman Grain, Inc. ("Penny Newman") and Universal Ag Services, Inc. ("Universal Ag") for their alleged failure to properly compensate the plaintiffs, to properly provide meal and rest periods, and to properly provide timely and accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs also alleged defendants' failure to indemnify them for work-related expenses as required. The parties reached a settlement agreement after a full-day mediation on January 15, 2015. Under the agreement, Penny Newman will make a gross payment of $600,000, to be placed in a trust account and to be allocated as follows: (1) An amount not exceeding $30,000 to be paid to the claims administrator Gilardi & Co., LLC; (2) The amount of $10,000 to be paid to each of the five named plaintiffs as an enhancement payment; (3) The amount of $150,000 to be paid to class counsel as attorneys' fees; and (4) An amount not exceeding $10,000 to be paid to class counsel as litigation costs. The Net Settlement Amount, the amount remaining after the distributions set forth, will be allocated as follows: (1) 20 percent of the Net Settlement Amount will be allocated to the settlement of class claims for unpaid wages; (2) 80 percent of the Net Settlement Amount will be allocated to the settlement of class claims for statutory penalties and interest, of which $10,000 will be allocated to the settlement of the claims brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2698-2699; and (3) Any unclaimed funds will be distributed to Central California Legal Services (CCLS), a nonprofit legal services program serving the Central Valley, as a cy pres recipient. Universal Ag also has agreed to separately cover the employers' share of payroll taxes on the amounts paid as wages. Judge Mueller granted preliminary approval of the agreement after finding that there is no indication of collusiveness between the parties; no indication of preferential treatment between plaintiffs and class members; and that the agreement appears to be within the range of possible approval. Judge Mueller also held that conditional certification of the settlement class is appropriate because it met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). A copy of the July 2, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/pX2RQPfrom Leagle.com. Jesus Palacios, Jose Palacios, Alejandro Herrera Aguilar, Edgar Torres, and Sabas Medina, Plaintiffs, represented by Della Barnett, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill, John E. Hill, Law Offices of John E Hill & Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Penny Newman Grain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Cusimano Tillman -- Christina.Tillman@mccormickbarstow.co -- McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP & David R. McNamara -- dave.mcnamara@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP. Universal Ag Services, Inc., and Juan Zavala, an individual, Defendants, represented by Paul J. Bauer -- pbauer@w2lg.com -- Walter & Wilhelm Law Group. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Princeton Joins Wyoming in Wet Wipes Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Hage, writing for Forest Lake Times, reported that the city of Princeton has joined Wyoming in its class action lawsuit against the makers of flushable wet wipes. The Princeton City Council on June 25 voted to join a class-action lawsuit aimed at changing the way manufacturers of flushable wipes market the products. Princeton City Administrator Mark Karnowski told members of the City Council that the products are advertised to be able to be flushed down a toilet without causing harm to plumbing, sewer and septic systems. But in actuality, he said, the products are harming municipal wastewater systems. The wipes allegedly get caught in the sewage system's filtering screens, clogging pipes and causing system shutdown until they can be removed manually. "The rags get caught in our lift stations and can break the whole thing," Karnowski said. "They don't disintegrate. They get caught on the jagged edge of sewer pipes and then stuff builds up," he added. It's a major issue, Karnowski and Public Works Director Bob Gerold said. Karnowski noted in a memo to the council that the wipes stay intact long enough to cause thousands, if not millions, of dollars in damage to municipal sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. The city of Wyoming filed a federal class action lawsuit in April against the makers of several kinds of wet wipes, alleging that wipes billed "flushable" are clogging the city's sewer system. The suit claims that Wyoming is only one of many cities that has this problem. Named in the suit as defendants are P&G, Kimberly-Clark, Nice-Pak, PDI, Tufco and Rockline. The companies manufacture a number of well-known wet wipe brands, including Charmin, Cottonelle, Equate, Hygea, Nice 'n Clean and more. According to the suit, even though the companies make several kinds of wipes that clearly state on the packaging that they can be flushed down the toilet and will dissolve in the sewer system, the wipes in question don't actually dissolve. "Flushable wipes must hold up under the pressure of scrubbing after being soaked in water and propylene glycol lotion for an extended period of time," the suit states. Because of the need to maintain this so-called "wet strength," the suit alleges, the wipes don't break down after they're flushed, like toilet paper does. The lawsuit, Karnowski said, asks for the manufacturers of the wipes to stop marketing them as flushable and to fund a public relations campaign educating the public on the fact that the wipes will not disintegrate when flushed. City Council Member Victoria Hallin noted that Princeton recently opened a "beautiful new wastewater treatment plant" and made the motion to support joining the litigation. The motion passed unanimously. Princeton and other cities involved in the lawsuit are represented by the law firm Flaherty and Hood. The firm is representing the city of Wyoming and the League of Minnesota Cities. There will be no cost to the city for joining the lawsuit, other than some research costs and costs associated with time and travel if Gerold is called as a witness in the case. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing in Appeal to be Completed --------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in the Federal Securities Class Action is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015. On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015. The Company believes that plaintiff's claims are without merit and continues to defend against them vigorously. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Facing Foss, Deerfield Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in the Federal Securities Class Action is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015. "On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against us and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of ours," the Company said. "The complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance." "On November 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13- 01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint is a putative class action filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants. The complaint, which is substantially similar to the complaint filed by Mr. Hussein described above, generally alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of the Exchange Act, and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14- 00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above related to the complaints filed by Mr. Hussein and the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company's directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. "Although we believe the claims to be without merit, our operating results and share price may be negatively impacted due to the negative publicity, expenses incurred in connection with our defense, management distraction, and/or other factors related to this litigation. In addition, litigation of this nature may negatively impact our ability to attract and retain customers and strategic partners, as well as qualified board members and management personnel." RIGHT CHOICE: Court Sends "Thomas" FLSA Suit to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Linda V. Parker granted in part and denied in part defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay or Dismiss Proceedings in the case captioned VINCENT THOMAS AND ALAN QUEEN, Plaintiffs, v. RIGHT CHOICE STAFFING GROUP, LLC, ADEPT SERVICES GROUP, INC., DOWNRIVER STAFFING GROUP, LLC, AUTOLINE TRANSPORTATION, INC. TIMOTHY SCHULTZ, AND TRACY SHAFFER, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 15-10055 (E.D. Mich., Southern Div.) A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC ("Right Choice"), Adept Services Group, Inc., Downriver Staffing Group, LLC, and Autoline Transportation, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Also impleaded in the suit as defendants were Timothy Schultz, the resident agent, authorized officer, and manager of the defendant entities, and Tracy Shaffer, the staffing manager, manager, and human resources agent of the defendant entities. On April 1, 2015, defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay or Dismiss Proceedings, arguing that their Subcontractor Agreements, which took effect on December 16, 2013, requires plaintiffs to arbitrate their FLSA claims. Judge Parker found no basis to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against any defendant at this time. She also found that plaintiffs and Right Choice agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under the Subcontractor Agreements, and that alternative estoppels requires plaintiffs to arbitrate their FLSA claims against all defendants with respect to work performed after December 16, 2013. The proceedings are stayed with respect to whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief for work performed prior to December 16, 2013, pending outcome of the arbitration. A copy of the July 6, 2015 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/1J5cAmfrom Leagle.com. Vincent Thomas, and Alan Queen, Plaintiffs, represented by Caitlin E. Malhiot, Gold Star Law, PC & Maia E. Johnson, Gold Star Law. Downriver Staffing Group, LLC, Autoline Transportation, Inc., Timothy Schultz, Tracy Shaffer, Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, and Adept Services Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark S. Demorest, Demorest Law Firm & Michael K. Hayes, Demorest Law Firm PLLC. RITA'S FRANCHISE: Faces "Newby" Suit in Pa. Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Ericka Newby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rita's Franchise Corporation and John Does 1-100, Case No. 2:15-cv-03880-JHS (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry L. Cohen, Esq. ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC 101 W. Elm St Ste 220 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 362-2628 Facsimile: (484) 362-2630 E-mail: bcohen@rccblaw.com ROBERT DERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose De Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto, Lorenzo Vega, Javier Santillan, and Jose Leonel Hernandez Henriques, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Robert Dering Construction, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00176 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, and all other available remedies under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Robert Dering Construction, LLC owns and operates a construction company that conducts business in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com ROCK CREEK: Entered Into MOU to Settle with Jonnie Williams ----------------------------------------------------------- Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, that on May 20, 2015, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Settlement (the "MOU") with Jonnie R. Williams ("Williams") providing for the manner in which indemnification payments will be made by the Company to law firms previously engaged by Mr. Williams. The MOU was entered into in furtherance of the settlement of the Company's securities class action litigation, which settlement was preliminarily approved on March 2, 2015, and will be presented to the Court at a final approval hearing anticipated to be held on June 22, 2015. In general, the MOU addresses the manner in which the Company will satisfy Mr. Williams' indemnification rights for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by Mr. Williams from the law firms of McGuire Woods LLP and Steptoe and Johnson LLP. The MOU provides for the payment of such expenses by an aggregate up-front payment of $300,000 to the law firms on or before May 29, 2015, plus subsequent payments of a total of $60,000 per month between the law firms to commence on August 1, 2015 (to be delayed until ten days after the Company obtains additional financing in the event a financing transaction does not occur prior to that time). The aggregate amount of payments to be made by the Company over an approximately two-year payment period under the MOU will be $1.6 million to McGuireWoods LLP (against an invoiced amount of $1.93 million) and $437,000 to Steptoe and Johnson LLP (against an invoiced amount of $629,897). The MOU also provides that certain discounts will be granted to the Company in the event that the Company makes early payment of the balance of payments due under the MOU, as more particularly set forth in the MOU. The MOU provides for customary releases and provides for the resolution of disputes under the MOU by United States Magistrate Judge David J. Novak. If the Company fails to obtain funding by August, 15, 2015, the parties agree to return to Judge Novak to enforce or restructure the payments under the MOU. A copy of the MOU is available at http://is.gd/3R8uEs SPRINT CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing on August 5 ---------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing has been scheduled for August 5, 2015, on the settlement in the class action lawsuit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger, and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff sought class action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the Company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27, 2014, the court certified a class including bondholders as well as stockholders. On April 11, 2014, the Company filed a petition to appeal that certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but that petition was denied. After mediation, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter, and the settlement amount is expected to be substantially paid by the Company's insurers. The district court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April 10, 2015 and a final approval hearing has been scheduled for August 5, 2015. "We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations," the Company said. SPRINT CORP: Settlement in Process of Administration ---------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement is in the process of administration in three consumer class actions. In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.). "The lawsuit generally alleges that we disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability of our services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee, which we refer to as ETF; and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions of our Terms of Service to the detriment of subscribers," the Company said. "In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally alleges we slow network speeds when network demand is highest and that such network management violates our agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's advertising and marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network management, we charge an ETF or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the circumstances. "In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges Clearwire's network management and advertising practices constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition under California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised. Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's network management practices. The parties collectively settled these three lawsuits, and the settlement is in the process of administration. "We have accrued an estimated amount we anticipate to pay for the settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the financial statements," the Company said. SPRINT CORP: Richard Wuest Action in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that litigation in the case filed by Richard Wuest is in the early stages. In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County. Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Sec.632.7, which prohibits the recording of communications made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties to the communication. Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, and pre- and post- judgment interest. "We removed the matter to federal court. On November 2, 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding two Clearwire call vendors to the lawsuit. We filed an answer on July 15, 2013, and discovery has begun. Class certification briefing is scheduled for the spring of 2014. The litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time," the Company said. SPRINT CORP: Lindsay Class Action in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------- Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that litigation in the lawsuit filed by Kennet Lindsay is in the early stages. In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others, filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC and Workforce Logic LLC. Plaintiffs allege claims individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide collective class under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which we refer to as the FSLA, from April 9, 2010 to present. The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock" before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and bonuses. Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs. "We filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2013. In January, 2014, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification, and we have filed our objections to that ruling with the district judge. The litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at this time," the Company said. SPRINT CORP: Discovery Ongoing Clearwire Stockholders Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that discovery has begun in the class action filed by Clearwire stockholders ACP Master, Ltd., Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., and Aurelius Opportunities Fund II, LLC. On April 26, 2013, stockholders ACP Master, Ltd., Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., and Aurelius Opportunities Fund II, LLC, filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Sprint and Sprint HoldCo., which we refer to as the ACP Action. On December 20, 2013, those entities filed an amended complaint, naming as defendants Sprint Corporation, Sprint Communications, Inc., the former directors of the Company, Starburst I, Inc., and SoftBank Corp. The amended ACP Action alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Sprint-Clearwire transaction (the "Merger"), that Sprint breached duties owed to the plaintiff stockholders by virtue of its status as a "controlling" stockholder, and that the other entities aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duties. The ACP action seeks a declaration that Sprint and the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, and that the other entities aided and abetted that breach; a declaration that the Special Committee and majority-of-minority conditions were insufficient safeguards and that defendants bear a burden of proving the "entire fairness" of the transaction; a declaration that the Note Purchase Agreement was the product of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties; a finding that the Merger was unfair to the plaintiffs; rescission of the Merger; and unspecified damages, fees and expenses. The defendants moved to dismiss the ACP Action in January, 2014. On October 23, 2013, the plaintiffs in the ACP Action filed a new lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company. The complaint asks the court for an appraisal of the "fair value" of plaintiffs' stock in Clearwire, and an order that Clearwire pay plaintiffs the "fair value," plus interest and costs. The Company filed its answer in November, 2013, and discovery has begun. This case and the ACP Action are in the early stages, their outcome is unknown, and an estimate of potential losses cannot be made at this time. STATE FARM: Bid to Certify Question to Ky. High Court Overruled --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr. overruled the defendant's Motion to Certify a Question to the Kentucky Supreme Court in the case captioned JEFFREY BAILEY and SUSAN HICKS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-53-HRW (E.D. Ky., Northern Div., Ashland) A putative class action was filed by Jeffrey Bailey and Susan Hicks challenging State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's methodology in calculating the "actual cash value" of the damaged portion of an insured structure upon the occurrence of loss. State Farm sought to certify a question to the Kentucky Supreme Court, to-wit, "[w]hether, under an insurance policy that provides for replacement cost coverage, an insurer may depreciate the cost of labor when it calculates the actual cash value of a structural loss." Judge Wilhoit found that State Farm brought this matter to district court by way of removal and did not seek certification until after their dispositive motion was denied. While removal does not foreclose the opportunity to seek certification, the timing in this case smacks of duplicity. A copy of the July 7, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/pSsl2jfrom Leagle.com. Jeffrey Bailey, and Susan Hicks, Plaintiffs, represented by Bartley K. Hagerman, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Erik David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Jessica Morgan Smith, Richardson & Smith, M. Austin Mehr, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Paula Richardson, Richardson, Barber & Williamson PSC & Philip G. Fairbanks, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by David T. Klapheke, Boehl, Stopher & Graves, Harnaik (Nick) Singh Kahlon -- nkahlon@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP, Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP, Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP & Tal C. Chaiken -- tchaiken@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin, LLP. STATE FARM: 5th Cir. Rules on Appeals in "Rigsby" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's ruling in the case captioned United States of America, ex rel, CORI RIGSBY; KERRI RIGSBY, Plaintiffs-Appellants - Cross-Appellees, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee - Cross-Appellant, NO. 14-60160 (5th Cir.). Cori and Kerri Rigsby brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, claiming that the latter submitted false claims to the United States government for payment on flood policies arising out of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. At trial, the Rigsbys prevailed on a single bellwether false claim under the FCA. The district court denied their request to conduct further discovery, and also denied State Farm's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Both parties appealed. The cross-appeals presented four issues: (1) whether the Rigsbys are entitled to further discovery; (2) whether the Rigsby's alleged violations of the FCA's seal requirement independently warrant dismissal; (3) whether the district court retained subject matter jurisdiction throughout the litigation; and (4) whether the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision to deny the Rigsbys additional discovery, but affirmed the decision with respect to the seal violations, subject matter jurisdiction, and State Farm's motion for judgment as a matter of law. A copy of the July 13, 2015 decision is available at http://is.gd/Jp1PqOfrom Leagle.com. SURVEYING ACCESSORIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Greisy Chacon and other similarly situated individuals v. Surveying Accessories Cheaper, LLC, Case No. 2015-016067-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Surveying Accessories Cheaper, LLC is engaged in the business of providing surveying services, having its main place of business 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 TETLEY USA: Bid to File 4th Amended Complaint Denied ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila denied the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint in the case captioned DARYL DE KECZER, Plaintiff, v. TETLEY USA, INC, Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02409-EJ (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div.). A putative class action was filed against Tetley USA Inc. alleging that it has made, and continues to make, false and deceptive claims on its misbranded packaged food products in violation of federal and California laws. Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Judge Davila found that plaintiff has not met his burden under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 16 and denied the motion for the following reasons: -- the claim for unjust enrichment has been deemed waived due to plaintiff's failure to amend his claim within the 15 days afforded by the Court's order and the omission of the claim in subsequent pleadings; -- plaintiff did not move for relief under Rule 16 nor demonstrate that the Rule's requirements are met; and -- plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause to permit amendment of the complaint. A copy of the July 10, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/fWz8nUfrom Leagle.com. Daryl De Keczer, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & J. Price Coleman, Coleman Law Firm. Tetley USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Joseph Clasen -- jclasen@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole LLP, Peter R Knight -- pknight@rc.com -- Robinson and Cole LLP & Philip A. Leider, Law Office of Philip A. Leider. TRANSURBAN: Va. Drivers Sue Over Penalties for Unpaid Toll Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- WTOP reported that a group of drivers have filed a class-action lawsuit in Virginia to recover thousands of dollars in penalties for unpaid toll fees. The lawsuit alleges that Transurban, an Australian company operating E-ZPass lanes on two major highways in Virginia, levied thousands of dollars in penalties against some drivers. Kevin Stanfield's wife is one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs. The Maryland man says their car's E-ZPass was linked to his wife's lost credit card, which they canceled. But when the couple didn't notify E-ZPass with the new credit card information and kept using the express lane, despite the transponder not working, the fees accumulated to more than $11,000. "My reaction was just pure astonishment . . . unbelievable," Kevin Stanfield told ABC News. Transurban says it gave Stanfield the opportunity to reduce administrative fees several times. Stanfield eventually settled for $2,200, but says he is now suing to get that money back. "Basically, I made an honest mistake and it ended up costing me," he said. "It's crazy." The company says it now has programs in place capping fees at $2,200. The company wants to warn drivers about unpaid tolls. Drivers should contact Transurban within the first five days to report missing a toll, and the driver will pay the toll price plus an administrative fee of $1.50, according to the company. UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Agarwal" Amended Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Dr. Anil Agarwal and Madhu Agarwal. On May 30, 2014, the Agarwals filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the First, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Motion to Dismiss was filed by "Any and All Employees and Council members of Bayonne, Bayonne, NJ" and "Judge Frank T. Carpenter, Bayonne Municipal Court, Bayonne, NJ". The movants assert that there was insufficient process, insufficient service of process, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Fox recommended the denial of the motion because the movants are not parties to the action. The movants are neither identified as defendants in the caption of the plaintiffs' actual amendment complaint, nor referenced in that pleading's factual allegations. Neither have they presented the Court with any authority that permits a person who is not a party to make a motion for relief in the action. A copy of the July 14, 2015 report and recommendation is available at http://is.gd/UJcx4Pfrom Leagle.com. The case is captioned DR. ANIL AGARWAL, 207-209 West Sherman St. McAdoo, PA 18237-0006, MAOHU AGARWAL, 419 Esplanade, Maywood, NJ 07607 & any and all US CITIZENS and permanent residents effected in any way by CONSTITUTIONAL WRONGS OF DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, US Congress, c/o Speaker of the Congress, All Federal Courts Judges c/o Court Clerk of United States Supreme Court All US Attorneys, c/o US Attorney General All States of United States, c/o Governor's and/or Attorney General's of the States, Any and All Violators of US Constitution, Any and All Institutions connected with Law, and/or Law Enforcement, Any and All Professionals [lawyers, state courts and municipal courts judges, sheriffs, police officers, court officers] specially connected with Law, Any and All News Media Watch Dogs and Independent Guarantors of US Constitution Rights, Any and All Jane and John Doe's who violated Constitution of America in any way, Rishi Rakshpal, 207-209 West Sherman St., McAdoo, PA 18237-0006, Judge Susan D. Wigenton U.S. District Court for New Jersey, Newark, NJ, Judge A. Richard Caputo, U.S. District Court, Scranton, PA 18501, Judge Thomas M. Blewitt U.S. District Court; Scranton, PA 18501, All Judges of Third, Circuit Courts of Appeal, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Court Personals of Third Circuit Courts of Appeal 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Third Circuit Courts of Appeal through The Clerk 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Sherifs and/or Administrators of detention facilities situated in the United States, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Sandy De Lo Renzo, Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St. Lodi, NJ 07644, Hudson City Saving Bank, West 80 Century Road, Paramus, NJ 07652; Custodian of Records, Hudson City Saving Bank, West 80 Century Road, Paramus, NJ 07652, Edward Reuter Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Vincent J. Caruso, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Gary Paparozzi, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Scott G. Sproviero, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Borough Clark of Lodi, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Tracie Nunno-D'Amico, Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Giuseppe Randazzo, Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Gerry Michata Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St., Lodi, NJ 07644, Nicholas M. Alicea, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, P.O. Box 600035, Harrisburg, PA 17106-0035, Carol Defalco Municipal Court, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Lodi Police Officer #1, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Lodi Police Officer #2, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Gregg A. Padovano, Municipal Court, 227 Phillips Ave., South Hackensack, NJ 07606, All Municipal Court Judges in State of New Jersey through NJ Attorney General, Ronald Dario, Municipal Court, 227 Phillips Ave., South Hackensack, NJ 07606, Judge Patric J. Roma, Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Bergen County Municipal Courts Administrator, Superior Court, Hackensack, NJ 07601, John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor Office, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Charls Cho, Bergen County Prosecutor officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Monica Haung, Bergen County Prosecutor officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Mr. Edward T. Rogan, 125 State Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Roy F. McGeady, Vicinage 2 Municipal Court, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Peter E. Doyne Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Axelrad, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Judge Sapp- Paterson, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625- 0006, Andrew Samson, 27 Horseneck Road, #210, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Joseph H. Orlando, Clerk, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625- 0006, All Personal, of Appellate Division, New Jersey Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, All Banks in USA through the CEO's, Judge Thomas P. Olivieri, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Kristina Gandolfo Murtha, Suite 5000, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1532, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever Suite 5000, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106- 1532, Judge Peter F. Bariso, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Maurice J. Gallipoli, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Patricia A. Krogman, 574 Summit Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Michael L. Ravin, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, The Clerk, Hudson County Superior Court, NJ 07306, The Sherif, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Kenneth J. Slomienski, Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Hector R. Velazquez, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judges of Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Borough of Maywood and Borough of Paramus, New Jersey, Governor and Attorney General, of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA 17120, All District Courts of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through Attorney General of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, To 10,0001 to be identified as Jane & Jon doe, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-1873 (PAC)(KNF) (S.D.N.Y.). Dr. Anil Agarwal, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Madhu Agarwal, any and all US Citizens and permanent residents effected in any way by Constitutional Wrongs of Defendants, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Borough of Lodi, Edward Reuter, Vincent J. Caruso, Gerry Michata, Defendant, represented by Christopher Charles Botta, Botta & Carver, LLP.. All Municipal Court Judges in State of New Jersey through NJ Attorney General, Defendant, represented by Shane Alexander Sullivan, Piro Zinna Cifelli Paris & Genitempo. Judge Patric J. Roma, Judge Roy F. McGeady, Judge Peter E. Doyne, Judge Axelrad, Judge Sapp-Paterson, Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Joseph H. Orlando, Judge Thomas P. Olivieri, Judge Peter F. Bariso, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias, Judge Maurice J. Gallipoli, Judge Michael L. Ravin, The Clerk, Judge Kenneth J. Slomienski, Judge Hector R. Velazquez, Defendant, represented by David M. Puteska, NJ Division of Law. Mr. Edward T. Rogan, Defendant, represented by Edward T. Rogan, Edward Rogan & Associates, LLC. Kristina Gandolfo Murtha, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever, Michael Ackerman, Defendant, represented by Nicole Carol Gazzo, Gross Polowy LLC. Patricia A. Krogman, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Diebold. Judge Jacqueline Russell, Defendant, represented by Martha Gale, Administrative Office of Pa. Courts. Any and All Employees and Council members of McAdoo, McAdoo, PA 18237, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Bellwoar -- ajbellwoar@sianalaw.com -- Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP & Eric M. Brown -- embrown@sianalaw.com -- Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP. Any and all employees and Council members of Bayonne, NJ 07002, Judge Frank T. Carpenter, Defendant, represented by Ravinder Singh Bhalla -- rbhalla@hobokennj.gov. Shapiro & Denardo, LLC, Defendant, represented by John A. DiCaro, Shapiro & DiCaro, LLP. Any and All Employees and Council members of Union City, Union City, NJ, Defendant, represented by Bryan Patrick Regan, Houser & Allison, APC. HSBC, All Defendants, represented by Justin Anthony Angelo -- angeloj@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP. UNIV. OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Greer" Bias Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned BILLY P. GREER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-1728 (TSC) (D.C.). On November 1, 2013, Billy P. Greer filed a complaint against his employer, the University of the District of Columbia ("UDC"), asserting that UDC discriminated against him on the basis of race, gender and age, and retaliated against him for protected activity, by refusing to promote him within the ranks of the UDC police department. UDC moved to dismiss the complaint for being untimely, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for failing to state a valid claim for relief. In granting UDC's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Judge Chutkan explained that while she is sympathetic to the difficulties that Greer's replacement counsel faced when he took on an already-pending case, these difficulties cannot be used to explain many of the deficiencies in the operative complaint. Plaintiff, however, may move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the July 10, 2015 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/Uk6Tzufrom Leagle.com. BILLY P. GREER, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Daniel Pressley -- mdpressley@thepressleyfirm.com -- PRESSLEY FIRM, PLLC. BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Jeremy S. Schneider, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Yoora Pak -- yoora.pak@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP & Anneliese Marie Kite-Stone -- anneliese.kitestone@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES: Settlements in CRT Class Suit Win Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS; Luscher et al. v. Videocon Industries Limited, et al., MASTER FILE NO. CV-07-5944 SC, NO. CV-13-03234-SC, MDL NO. 1917. (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div.), District Judge Samuel Conti granted preliminary approval of class action settlements with the Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung SDI, Thomson and TDA defendants. Judge Conti preliminarily found that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied with respect to the Settlement Class. Mario N. Alioto and Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP were approved as Settlement Class Counsel. A Fairness Hearing will be held on November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the July 9, 2015 amended order is available at http://is.gd/QSTXmlfrom Leagle.com. Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Daniel D. Owen -- dowen@polsinelli.com -- Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L Klisura -- eklisura@sherleff.com -- Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady -- jbrady@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC,Aaron M. Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian,, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva, Fred A. Silva -- fsilva@damrell.com -- Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday -- kmonday@damrell.com -- Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger Martin Schrimp -- rschrimp@damrell.com -- Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP. Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross -- terry@gba-law.com -- Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C. Belsky -- adam@gba-law.com -- Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Monique Alonso -- monique@gba-law.com -- Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP. Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law Offices of Brian Barry,Dennis Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Donald L. Perelman, Fine Kaplan & Black RPC, Gerard A Dever, Fine Kaplan and Black, RPC, Joseph Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Josh Ewing, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA, Julie A. Kearns, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Matthew Duncan, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC,Veronica Besmer, Besmer Law Firm & Vincent J. Ward, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA. Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Marisa C. Livesay, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Samuel J. Nasto, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Craig Stephenson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. David G. Norby, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. John Larch, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP,Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch,Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Gary Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto- Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick & Goldborough PLLC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan, St. James Recovery Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut & Cambronne & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm. Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Steven Ganz, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC. Dana Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group,Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP,Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group PC, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine,Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Studio Spectrum, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg LLP & Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP. Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Brady Lane Cotton, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Colleen Sobotka, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Daniel Riebow, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Travis Burau, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Andrew Kindt, Plaintiff, represented by James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. James Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Alan Rotman, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Ryan Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Charles Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC. Daniel R. Hergert, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Adrienne Belai, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Joshua Maida, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Rosemary Ciccone, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Frank Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Albert Sidney Crigler, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP,Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC. Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP,David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N. Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie LLP,Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Gillett, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Matthew C. Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP. Department of Legal Affairs, and Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiffs, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.. Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.. Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP,William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA,Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Old Comp Inc., and Radioshack Corp., Plaintiffs, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP,Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA. Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Giovanni Constabile, and Gio's Inc, Plaintiffs, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters. Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Tweeter Newco, LLC, and ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Colin C. West, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP. Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP. Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP. Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP,Gary R Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kira A Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP. Dell Inc., and Dell Products L.P., Plaintiffs, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.. Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP,Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA. YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law Group. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP. Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton& Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Irico Group Corp., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brad D. Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Douglas L Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson,Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Susan Elizabeth Nash, Munger Tolles Olson LLP,Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP & YongSang Kim. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph Richard Wetzel, King & Spalding, Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant, represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP,John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP,Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung- Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael Lacovara, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson,Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP,Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp,Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III,Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP. MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP &David L. Yohai. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP,Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton. Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant, represented by David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton. Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., Charles M Malaise & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP,Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & YongSang Kim. MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald,Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,Meaghan Thomas- Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP,Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas- Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP. Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP. Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp & William H. Bave, III. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J. Sharp. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant, represented by Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP,Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III & Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP &Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M Hurley & Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M Hurley & Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia, Defendant, represented by Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP. Technologies Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Slezak Gaus, Dillingham Murphy, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Donald Arthur Wall, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Ellen Tobin, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt Mosle LLP, Jeffrey Ira Zuckerman, Buris, Mallet Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, Mark C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire Sanders (US) LLP. Technicolor S.A, Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP. Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP. Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Charles M Malaise, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP. Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Charles M Malaise, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP. Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC. Alan Frankel, Respondent, represented by Alan Frankel. Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP, Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC. State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew Moore, Attorney at Law. Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer. Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. John R. Stoebner, represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop, Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois Attorney General. State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon Department of Justice. WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Class Claims May Proceed, 6th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CHERYL PHIPPS; BOBBI MILLNER; SHAWN GIBBONS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant- Appellee, NO. 13-6194 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court's order dismissing class claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cheryl Phipps, Bobbi Millner, and Shawn Gibbons sued Wal-Mart in federal district court in Tennessee, alleging individual and putative class claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of current and former female employees in Wal-Mart Region 43. They also claimed gender discrimination in pay and promotions as the result of regional Wal-Mart management policies and decisions. The district court granted Wal-Mart's motion dismiss the class claims as time-barred under the tolling principles of American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983). On appeal, the 6th Circuit held that the putative class claims are not barred by American Pipe or Crown, Cork & Seal Co. It reversed the district court's order dismissing the class claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/mauPCafrom Leagle.com. ARGUED: Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., George E. Barrett -- gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barretjohnston.com -- Scott P. Tift -- stift@barretjohnston.com -- Seth M. Hyatt -- shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, Jocelyn D. Larkin, THE IMPACT FUND, Berkeley, California, for Appellants. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, San Francisco, California, Mark A. Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Dallas, Texas, for Appellee. WALGREEN CO: Father of 'Bottle Bill' Sues Over Bottle Redemptions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Pastor, writing for The New York Times, reported that G. Oliver Koppell has not stopped talking about the "Bottle Bill" since its long-sought passage in 1982. Even during Mr. Koppell's failed campaign to unseat State Senator Jeffrey D. Klein of New York, his bill that turned empties into loose change was never far from his platform. Now, less than a year after slipping from public life, Mr. Koppell, a former Bronx councilman who served as a state assemblyman and as the state's attorney general, came full circle with his filing of a class-action suit in State Supreme Court. The complaint charges that the Walgreen Company has violated the bottle law, turning away from its Duane Reade stores and even harassing the people most dependent on the 5-cent redemptions. All four of the original plaintiffs have struggled with homelessness. One of them, 49-year-old Avery Wheeler, said he earned a meager living recycling bottles but "most of the time, they reject them," he said of the Duane Reade locations he frequents. To make matters worse, the homeless shelter where he lives bars him from bringing his rejected bags inside. The suit was filed on behalf of "all persons who make a substantial portion of their income by collecting and recycling beverage containers" and have been subjected to unlawful refusal at stores owned by the Walgreen Company, which operates 250 Duane Reade stores in New York City. The drugstores are frequently visited by those who gather cans and bottles from the garbage at night, Mr. Koppell said, because many are open 24 hours and are legally obligated to redeem at all times. The Walgreen Company declined to comment on the continuing litigation. Joshua Johnson, a plaintiff in the class action, is also being represented by Mr. Koppell in a separate case filed in which he claims he was assaulted by Duane Reade employees who turned him away. The class action seeks monetary compensation for the plaintiffs but more important, Mr. Koppell said, a permanent injunction requiring the Walgreen Company to change course. "It's unbelievable how they blatantly violate the law," he said. It's hard to fathom how the two original plaintiffs came to find Mr. Koppell, of all people. Mr. Johnson's domestic partner, Brenda Gardner, said that after years of making complaints to Walgreen's corporate office, she searched online for a lawyer and called six at random before one expressed interest. The seventh? Mr. Koppell. "For me this is sort of a labor of love in a way," said Mr. Koppell, who seemed awed by the coincidence. "I mean, it's my thing." WESTERN POWER: Class Suit Over Perth Hills Bush Fire Advances ------------------------------------------------------------- 9News.com.au reported that a class action over the bushfire that destroyed dozens of homes in Perth's Hills region is gaining momentum, with victims saying they have a strong case against Western Power. The blaze started when a rotten and termite-ridden power pole fell over in January, razing 57 homes, seven outbuildings and about 392ha of bushland. A further six homes were partially damaged. Residents pursued the class action after an EnergySafety report found Western Power contractors should have observed clay deposits in the privately-owned jarrah pole earlier that month and in July 2013, indicating extensive and prolonged termite activity. EnergySafety emphasised the duty of care owners of private power poles had to maintain them, but also noted Western Power's work practice standards, which state it had "a responsibility to the customer to notify them of the unsafe condition of a pole and to make the site safe". Stoneville and Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg Jones said the utility had a duty to inform the landowner, an elderly lady. Mr Jones said there were more than enough claimants to make the class action viable, with about 100 people attending a meeting with Slater and Gordon lawyers earlier. He said a much longer version of the EnergySafety report -- requiring a hard drive as it is 128GB -- had been viewed by high- level QCs who believed the residents had a very strong case. "There is a reasonable chance of this being successful," Mr Jones told AAP. The action could take up to two years to proceed, he said. Nearly 18 months after losing their homes, about 10 per cent of the residents are still arguing with their insurance companies. Others who had their claims settled quickly were up to 15 per cent out of pocket given a new planning scheme for bushfire-prone areas had been introduced as a result of the blaze, meaning higher costs to re-build. "If this is settled the way it should be settled, it will provide some closure to people," Mr Jones said. "Their lives have changed forever. One minute they were sitting in their home enjoying their surrounds and peace. The next thing, they're wearing somebody else's clothes, living in somebody else's accommodation. "It's just a terrible situation." WILLOW INC: Sued by Homeowners in Harvey Gated Community -------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a group of more than 300 homeowners have filed a class action lawsuit against the developers of a Harvey gated community built over filled in marshland after their homes allegedly experienced foundation and structural damage that was not covered by insurance polices. Blanche Jenkins, on behalf of the proposed class, filed suit against Willow Inc., National Home Insurance Company -- A Risk Retention Group and their insurers in the 24th Judicial District Court on April 14. The class alleges that in 2000 or 2001 Willow Inc. received permission from Jefferson Parish to fill in a piece of marshland and build a subdivision over it. The plaintiffs, who are all owners of homes that were later built in the Village Green subdivision, contend that Willow Inc. did not allow enough time for the property to settle after the marshland was filled in. Between 2001 and 2007 the class asserts that homes were built and marketed for Village Green subdivision -- a gated community -- that they purchased. As part of the plaintiffs' purchase agreement Willow Inc. allegedly provided them with a 10-year guarantee, backed by insurance, against foundation and structural problems. However, the plaintiffs allege that before the 10-year warranty was up they began to experience foundation and structural problems with their homes, but the defendants failed to provide insurance payments to reimburse them for the damages because the insurance contracts only covered flood damage. The class contends they would have never bought their homes to begin with had they known the warranty and insurance would not be granted when foundation and structural damage occurred. Further, the class asserts they did not realize the warranties provided by the defendants included arbitration agreements, thus depriving the class of a chance to settle matters arising from the purchase in court -- which they maintain is against Louisiana law. The plaintiffs claim arbitration costs exceed $350,000. The defendants are accused of breach of contract, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. An unspecified amount in damages is sought for reimbursement for property damage, mental pain and anguish, attorney's fees and arbitration costs. The class is represented by James E. Shields of Gretna-based Shields & Shields APLC. The case has been assigned to Division D Judge Scott U. Schlegel. Case no. 748-666. XOOM CORP: Faces "Beverly" Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Allan Beverly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xoom Corp., et al., Case No. 11285-VCG (Del. Ch., July 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Xoom Corporation, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Xoom by PayPal Inc., through an inadequate consideration and unfair price. Xoom Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the digital consumer-to-consumer international money transfer business. PayPal Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides digital money transfer services. 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 - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 * Hausfeld Inks $19.5-Mil. Settlement in Potatoes Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Purchasers of fresh potatoes may be entitled to money from a settlement in a class-action lawsuit pending in federal court in Idaho, Hausfeld LLP announced. The settlement provides a cash payment of $19.5 million and a portion of that amount will be distributed to those who purchased potatoes directly from defendants and certain other producers and sellers of potatoes between June 18, 2006 and June 17, 2015 and who file claim forms before October 16, 2015. Several thousand potato buyers received notices and claim forms in the mail, alerting them to the settlement. A website, www.PotatoesAntitrustSettlement.com, provides information about the case and the Settlement, and includes case- related documents, and claim forms that can be submitted online or by mail. Class members can also call a toll-free hotline to get information at 866-985-7589. The amount each class member will receive will depend on the number of claims made. The case, titled In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, was filed in 2010. The plaintiffs allege that defendants, who include various farms, marketing groups and cooperatives conspired among themselves and others to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices at which potatoes were sold in the United States by controlling and restricting the supply of potatoes. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants implemented this price-fixing and supply-management conspiracy by agreeing to take several coordinated actions including, among other methods: 1) agreeing to limit the number of acres planted to potatoes; 2) agreeing to destroy existing Fresh Potato stocks or divert Fresh Potatoes into processing; 3) and agreeing to limit the flow of Fresh Potatoes into the fresh market to stabilize or raise potato prices. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' actions violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal law that prohibits any agreement that unreasonably restrains competition. The defendants denied all of the charges throughout the litigation. The parties agreed to settle the action to avoid the cost and risk of trial and appeals that would likely follow a trial. The Court held a hearing on June 11 to determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the settlement, and granted preliminary approval on June 17, 2015. Class members have until October 16, 2015 to make claims, object to the settlement or exclude themselves from it. Information regarding class members' rights and options, including a claim form that can be submitted online, can be found at www.PotatoesAntitrustSettlement.com ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *