/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 151 Headlines 1052 LLC: Faces "Vaquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Will Not Be Scheduled Before 2016 ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Action ALERE INC: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Granted in Part AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Henn" Suit to Nebraska District Court ANNIE PRICE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects ARS NATIONAL: Info Disclosure Violates FDCPA, Judge Rules ASCENA RETAIL: Mehigan Case Amended to Include Nationwide Class ASCENA RETAIL: Cowhey and Mehigan Cases Consolidated ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Filed Bid to Transfer Traynor-Lufkin Case ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Been Set BAYWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Salas-Pizzaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BEST BUY: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over False Gift Cards BK VENTURE: Faces "Gaskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Pending v. Officers & Directors BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Galindo" Suit Says BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: "Eka" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Illegally Uses Consumers Internet, Suit Says CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Tosses Defamation Claim v. Creditors CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Monaghan" Suit Over FDCPA Violation CERNER CORPORATION: Faces "Letterman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COLE COUNTY, MO: Limits Detainees Clothing, "Ingram" Suit Claims CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Pending CROSSROADS LLC: Removed "Vanderau" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama DISH ONE: Named in TCPA Class Suit DOLE FOOD: CEO Accused of Shortchanging Investors DFRF ENTERPRISES: Charged in Alleged $15-Mil. Ponzi Scheme DUNKIN DONUTS: Ex-Employee Files Suit For Overtime Denial DUPONT CO: Faces 2 Test Trials Over C-8 Contamination EDISON INT'L: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit EDISON INT'L: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit EL CAFETERO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ETSY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit EXPEDIA: Liable for Sales Tax on Hotel Rooms, Court Rules FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against California Class-Action FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Minsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation FINGER ONE: Removed "Doe" Suit to South District California FIVE BELOW: Lead Plaintiff Filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal FLOWERS FOODS: 4 Complaints Filed Alleging Misclassification FORD MOTOR: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Apartheid Cases FREMONT M: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Payment Packing GOLD CLUB: Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable in Wage Suit GRAND & PULASKI: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HIKO ENERGY: Directed by Atty Gen. to Return $1.25MM to Customers HOME PROPERTIES: E.D. Pa. Trims "Jarzyna" FDCPA Lawsuit HUDSON CLOTHING: Falsely Labeled Jeans, "Schulert" Suit Claims INDIANA: 'Serious Sex Offenders' Fight for Right to Worship INVENSENSE INC: Facing Five Class Actions by Shareholders J. C. PENNEY: Defending Against Marcus and Johnson Class Actions J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action J. C. PENNEY: Filed Answer to Employment Class Action J. C. PENNEY: Court Granted Certification in Spann Case JACO OIL: Class Settlement Has Initial OK; Final Hearing on 9/25 JBS USA: Court Rules on EEOC Suit Over Muslim Staff Accomodations JLING INC: Faces "Ji" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KING SUPPLY: Insurer May Intervene in Class Suit, Says 7th Circ. L'OREAL USA: CA Affirms Class Cert. Denial in Privacy Suit LAHEY HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Removed "Carzell" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia LUXE VALET: Faces "Payton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Pending MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Scout Sues Over Minimum Wage Violations MF GLOBAL: Former Execs Ink $64.5MM Tentative Deal with Investors MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over Xbox Console Defect MV TRANSPORATION: "Diabate" Suit Wins Conditional Certification MY TRADE: "Bourhis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Malakha" Suit Over FDCPA Violation NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Children Overstaying in Foster Care NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Banda" Suit Over FDCPA Violation NRG ENERGY: Removed "Wilens" Suit to Central District California PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase PATRIOT LOGISTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages PD LONG: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Action Claims PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement in COI Cases Awaits Approval PIGGLY WIGGLY: Removed "Johnson" Suit to S.C. District Court PLAINS ALL: Keller and Lieff File Suit Over Refugio Oil Spill PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Gudelsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims SANFORD MEDICAL: Former Patient Files Suit Over ER Charges SEARS HOLDING: Worker Sues Over Debit Card Mode of Payment SIGNET JEWELERS: Store-Level Employment Practices Action Ongoing SIGNET JEWELERS: Investigating Naomi Tapia Matter SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion to Dismiss Heard by Court of Chancery SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plantiff Bid Deadline SRM BEAUTY: Faces "Loh" Suit Over Corporate Funds Mismanagement SUTTER HEALTH: Removed "McCray-Key" Class Suit to E.D. Calif. TEIKOKU PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Lidoderm TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Parties Signed MOU TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: "Dawsey" Suit Belongs to Federal Court ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Class Action ULTA SALON: Parties Agree to Private Mediation UNISYS CORP: Emotional Distress Claim Barred, Calif. Judge Says UNO CAFE: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Suit Under Court Consideration VOLKSWAGEN: Denver Firm Wants Court to Uphold Fee Division Deal VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Allows Discrimibation Suit to Begin WESTJET: Quebec Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Accessibility Suit WILLIAMS CO: Another Law Firm Files Class Suit, Says Andrews WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal WYETH CANADA: HRT Users Can Claim Compensation from $13MM Fund ********* 1052 LLC: Faces "Vaquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Vazquez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. 1052 LLC d/b/a Amarillo, d/b/a Papagayo and Anthony Arrighi, and Katherine Arrighi, Case No. 1:15-cv-22677-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar located at 1052 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Will Not Be Scheduled Before 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated expects oral argument will not be scheduled before 2016 in the case, Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, ABM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015. The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case") The Augustus case is a certified class action involving allegations that we violated certain California state laws relating to rest breaks. The case centers around whether requiring security guards to remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. Subsequently, the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the $89.7 million common fund. "We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals Court")," the Company said. "On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and the attorneys' fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiffs and vacate the damages award." "On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to work is not the same as performing work. . . . Section 226.7 proscribes only work on a rest break." The plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition. No date has been set for oral argument. "We expect that oral argument will not be scheduled before 2016. We believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California Supreme Court," the Company said. ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that oral argument has not been scheduled relating to the appeal in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case"). The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. "We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said. "We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases, or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- ABIOMED, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that on February 6, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit, affirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District Court, of a previously disclosed complaint brought by alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired common stock of the Company between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaint related to two previously reported complaints that were filed on November 16 and 19, 2012 and alleged that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the Impella 2.5 product and sought damages in an unspecified amount. The District Court consolidated these complaints, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action. The Company does not expect any further activity related to this matter. ALERE INC: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------- Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that AHM's motion to dismiss a lawsuit related to theft of a laptop has been granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA claims. In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000 patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or AHM. On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under California state law, including under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, or CMIA, arising out of this theft. On October 7, 2014, the class action was dismissed with leave to amend the complaint. On October 28, 2014, an amended complaint was filed, and on November 17, 2014 AHM responded by filing another motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2015, AHM's motion to dismiss was granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA claims. AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Henn" Suit to Nebraska District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Rosemary Henn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. CI15-5322, was removed from the Douglas County District Court to the U.S. District Court District of Nebraska. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00257-JFB-TDT to the proceeding. The class suit arises out of the alleged breach of insurance contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric R. Chandler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC R. CHANDLER 319 South 17th Street, Suite 522 Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 933-6858 Facsimile: (402) 929-7939 E-mail: ericchandlerlaw@gmail.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. M. A. Mehr, Esq. Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq. MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM 201 West Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 225-3731 Facsimile: (859) 225-3830 E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com mamehr@austinmehr.com pgf@austinmehr.com The Defendant is represented by: Bartholomew L. McLeay, Esq. Brooke H. McCarthy, Esq. KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: bart.mcleay@kutakrock.com brooke.mccarthy@kutakrock.com ANNIE PRICE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Femi Andrades v. Annie Price, Bridget Bradley, and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15777860 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com ARS NATIONAL: Info Disclosure Violates FDCPA, Judge Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that following a Third Circuit ruling last year finding a debtor's account number on the outside of an envelope violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled embedding that number in a bar code is equally problematic given the advent of smartphone bar-code readers. The judge determined the use of the bar code increases the risk that the receiver could be a victim of identity theft. U.S. District Judge William J. Nealon of the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied ARS National Services Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding in his opinion on July 22 that the debt collector violated Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA by including information other than its address on an envelope. The district court relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's 2014 ruling in Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, which held that "disclosure of the plaintiff's account number implicated 'a core concern animating the FDCPA -- the invasion of privacy.'" It also cited to its own July 15 opinion in Styer v. Professional Medical Management, which held that disclosure of a QR code on a debt-collection envelope violated the same section of the FDCPA. "The Third Circuit stated that the plaintiff's account number was 'a core piece of information pertaining to [plaintiff's] status as a debtor and [defendant's] debt-collection effort,'" Judge Nealon wrote for the court in Kostik v. ARS National Services. "Moreover, the Third Circuit concluded that 'disclosure [of the account number] has the potential to cause harm to a consumer that the FDCPA was enacted to address.'" The FDCPA was enacted in 1977, Judge Nealon said, "'to eliminate abusive debt-collection practices by debt collectors, to ensure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt- collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent state action to protect consumers against debt- collection abuses.'" Because "bar codes can be easily deciphered by consumers using widely available free applications for 'smartphones,'" Judge Nealon said, and an "'account number is not meaningless,'" per the Third Circuit, ARS violated Section 1692f(8). Lisa Kostik filed a complaint against ARS on Dec. 1, 2014, regarding a letter the company mailed to her in December 2013 in an attempt to collect a debt, Judge Nealon said. A bar code appeared below the return address in the envelope window, which, when scanned, revealed Ms. Kostik's account number. "By disclosing the bar code to the general public, it increased the risk that plaintiff would be a victim of identity theft," Judge Nealon said. ARS argued "imposing liability due to the possibility of illegal action by a third party is 'inappropriate.'" It also argued the FDCPA "was not intended to prohibit the disclosure of benign symbols on any envelope sent by a debt collector as a means of communicating with a consumer by use of the mails," Judge Nealon said. The company conceded that Section 1692f(8) "prohibits any language or symbol from appearing on a debt-collection envelope," but argued that courts have found benign symbols not to violate the act. The Douglass court, however, held that disclosure of the plaintiff's account number was not benign because "divulging such information to the public meant it 'could be used to expose [the plaintiff's] financial predicament,'" Judge Nealon said. The Third Circuit further held that the "'account number is not meaningless -- it is a piece of information capable of identifying [plaintiff] as a debtor,'" Judge Nealon said, which the FDCPA was enacted to prevent. The defendant in Douglass "did not dispute that the plain language of Section 1692f(8) prohibits 'including [the plaintiff's] account number on the face of the envelope,'" Judge Nealon said. Ms. Kostik argued that "'because the bar code contains plaintiff's account number, under [Douglass] it cannot be benign,'" Judge Nealon said. Styer dealt with a QR code included on a debt-collection envelope that revealed the plaintiff's name, address and account number when scanned, Judge Nealon said. The Styer court applied Douglass, in an opinion Nealon wrote, and determined that disclosure of the QR code on the envelope was prohibited under Section 1692f(8). Applying Douglass and Styer together, Judge Nealon denied ARS's motion. Carlo Sabatini of Sabatini Law Firm in Dunmore represents Ms. Kostik. Richard Perr of Fineman Krekstein & Harris in Philadelphia represents ARS. Neither Mr. Sabatini nor Mr. Perr returned a call for comment. ASCENA RETAIL: Mehigan Case Amended to Include Nationwide Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the complaint in the case, Mehigan v. Tween Brands, Inc., was amended a second time seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class action lawsuit. On February 12, 2015, Melinda Mehigan and Fonda Kubiak, both consumers, filed a purported class action proceeding (the "Mehigan case") against Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers who, in the case of Ms. Mehigan in the State of New Jersey, and in the case of Ms. Kubiak in the State of New York, made purchases at Justice from 2009 to 2015 (the "Alleged Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that Justice violated state comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unfair benefit to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's customers in the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees. On February 17, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was amended to add five more named individual plaintiffs and to add the same allegations against Justice in the States of California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. On April 8, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was amended a second time seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class action lawsuit. As amended, the case covers Justice customers in 47 states. The excluded states are Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in Hawaii or Alaska. A similar class action lawsuit making substantially the same allegations as the Mehigan case was settled in December 2014 in Ohio, although the Company denied any wrongdoing as part of that settlement. ASCENA RETAIL: Cowhey and Mehigan Cases Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania consolidated the case, Cowhey v. Tween Brands, Inc., and the case, Mehigan v. Tween Brands. On February 17, 2015, Carol Cowhey, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding (the "Cowhey case") against Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice") in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers who in the State of Pennsylvania made purchases at Justice during the Alleged Class Period. The allegations in the Cowhey case are substantially the same as those in the Mehigan case. The relief sought in the Cowhey case focuses on remedies available under Pennsylvania law, which the Plaintiff claims to include treble damages. On March 19, 2015, Justice removed the Cowhey case to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the Mehigan case. They are now consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Filed Bid to Transfer Traynor-Lufkin Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that Justice has filed a motion to transfer the case, Traynor-Lufkin v. Tween Brands, Inc., to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 6, 2015, Katie Traynor-Lufkin and three other named plaintiffs, all consumers, filed a purported nationwide class action (the "Traynor-Lufkin case") against Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice") in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Traynor-Lufkin case covers Justice customers in 47 states. As with the Mehigan case, the Traynor- Lufkin case excludes Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in Hawaii or Alaska. In December 2014, Justice settled a similar class action lawsuit in the State of Ohio, although the Company denied any wrongdoing as part of that settlement. The allegations and damages sought in the Traynor-Lufkin case are substantially the same as those in the Mehigan case. On April 7, 2015, Justice removed the Traynor-Lufkin case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On April 13, 2015, Justice filed a motion to transfer the Traynor- Lufkin case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In seeking the transfer, Justice argued that there were already two consolidated actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and that a forum in Ohio is not appropriate because no Ohio consumers are involved in the case. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been advised that it is Justice's intention to seek to consolidate the Traynor-Lufkin case with the other two presently consolidated before it. ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Been Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, that a hearing for the appeal in a class action lawsuit has not been set. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of the Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount." "On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants' answering brief is due April 13, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set. "The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of December 31, 2014. The costs associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of the Company's business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the future." BAYWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Salas-Pizzaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan C. Salas-Pizarro and other similarly-situated individuals v. Baywood Hotels Inc., Mia Hospitality, LLC a/k/a Fairfield Inn and Suites Miami Airport South, Doral Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a Fairfield Inn Miami Airport and Natalia Fernandez, Case No. 1:15- cv-22675-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Florida corporations, having their main place of business in Dade County, Florida. They are in the business of providing hotel and hospitality services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BEST BUY: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over False Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Case No. BC587174 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who incurred charges for gift cards from the Defendants, which were falsely, fraudulently, deceptively, deceitfully, and repeatedly represented and advertised as discounted gift cards for purchase on the Best Buy website. Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the entire state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net BK VENTURE: Faces "Gaskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Kieara Gaskin and Tenia Stuckey, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BK Venture Group Ltd. d/b/a Jaguars 3 and Starlets NYC, KB Venture Group LLC d/b/a Club Lust NY, Kevin Burch and Martin "Doe", Case No. 1:15-cv-04190 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 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 adult entertainment clubs in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lizabeth Schalet, Esq. LIPMAN & PLESUR 500 North Broadway, Suite 105 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 Facsimile: (516) 931-0030 E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05539-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in the health services. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Deborah J. Winegard, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1068 Virginia Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 607-8222 Facsimile: (404) 607-8451 E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com - and - Henry C. Quillen, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 294-1591 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (205) 705-1223 E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net - and - Debra B. Hayes, Esq. Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq. THE HAYES LAW FIRM 700 Rockmead, Suite 210 Kingwood, TX 77339 Telephone: (281) 815-4963 Facsimile: (832) 575-4759 E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com chunter@dhayeslaw.com - and - Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Dennis Pantazis, Esq. Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com bclark@wcqp.com - and - U.W. Clemon, Esq. J. Mark White, Esq. Augusta S. Dowd, Esq. Linda G. Flippo, Esq. WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C. The Massey Building 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 323-1888 Facsimile: (205) 323-8907 E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com adowd@whitearnolddowd.com mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Pending v. Officers & Directors ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlueNRGY Group Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that class action securities suits are pending against the Company's current and past officers and directors. In December 2014, a class action securities suit was filed in a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against the Company and various current and past officers and directors, namely Mr. William Morro, Mr. Carlo Botto, Mr. Richard Pillinger, Mr. Todd Barlow, Mr. Gerard McGowan and Mr. James Greer. Mr. Morro, formerly a non-executive independent director currently serves as Chairman of the Company's Board and its Managing Director (the Australian entity equivalent of a CEO); Mr. Botto continues as a non-executive member of the Board; and Mr. Pillinger is the Company's CFO. The other parties to the lawsuit are no longer associated with the Company. "This lawsuit is still pending with respect to the former officers and directors and we believe that those parties intend to defend themselves vigorously," the Company said. The deed of company arrangement, or DOCA, had the effect of extinguishing the claims against the Company in this action, however, the possibility remains that the plaintiffs will endeavor to press their claims in jurisdictions outside Australia. "It is impossible to estimate the outcome or the costs to us of such an action if it were to occur," the Company said. In December 2014, a different lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court by one of the holders of Series B Preferred Shares against the Company and Messrs. Morro, Botto, and McGowan. This action was withdrawn without prejudice in April 2015, but prior thereto Mr. Morro and Mr. Botto entered into a settlement with respect only to themselves in their capacity as directors that precludes the plaintiff reasserting the suit against them except in the case that plaintiff is itself sued in connection with losses suffered on the investment. "The suit can be reasserted again at any time against Mr. McGowan or other competent officers or directors or against us. However, The DOCA had the effect of extinguishing the claims against the us in this action, but the possibility remains that the plaintiffs could endeavor to press their claims in jurisdictions outside Australia. It is impossible to estimate the outcome or cost to us of such an action were it to occur," the Company said. Both of these suits are still pending with regard to the current and former officers/directors and the current officers and directors plan to defend themselves vigorously. The Voluntary Administration had the effect of extinguishing the claims against the Company in these actions. BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Galindo" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Iram Galindo, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00108 (W.D. Tex., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Brazos Rock, Inc. owns and operates a construction and services company that does business in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: "Eka" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Allan Eka, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, Case No. 508780/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York State Labor Law. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center operates a non-profit hospital located at 101-01 Avenue D, Brooklyn, New York, 11236. The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey Stark, Esq. THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP 10 Rockefeller Plaza, 10111 Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 687-8200 E-mail: cstark@dwecklaw.com CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Illegally Uses Consumers Internet, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Jensen, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04188 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged unauthorized use of its customers' Internet service, specifically by converting the individual wireless routers it leases to those customers into a public Wi-Fi network to externalize its infrastructure costs to its residential Internet customers. Cablevision Systems Corporation is an American media corporation, with its principle place of business located at 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, NY 11714. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. "Hank" Bates, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Brian T. Ku, Esq. Louis I. Mussman, Esq. M. Ryan Casey, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN, P.A. 6001 NW 153rd St., Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 891-1322 Facsimile: (305) 891-4512 E-mail: brian@kumussman.com louis@kumussman.com ryan@kumussman.com - and - Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com savila@milsteinadelman.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Tosses Defamation Claim v. Creditors ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a Manhattan Commercial Division judge on July 20 dismissed a claim by embattled casino operator Caesars Entertainment that a group of its creditors defamed the company in statements to the media and in regulatory hearings. In January, Caesars' largest business unit, Caesars Entertainment Operating Company -- which controls Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Caesars Atlantic City and at least a dozen other properties -- voluntarily entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Caesars recently has been in fights with creditors in numerous courts -- including the Delaware Court of Chancery and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois -- stemming from a plan to restructure $18 billion in debt. In Caesars Entertainment Corporation v. Appaloosa Investment Limited Partnership, 652392/14, Caesars sued in New York a group of 30 creditors -- referred to as the Second Lien Holders -- for tortious interference with prospective business relations predicated upon defamation claims. Those claims were based upon statements that the lien holders and their representatives made in 2014 to gaming boards in Illinois and Louisiana and in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that were critical of the company's plans. The statements in question include Los Angeles attorney Sidney Levinson, a Jones Day partner who is representing the lien holders, telling the Illinois Gaming Board that a proposed CEOC restructuring plan amounted to an "endless shell game." Representatives for the lien holders also told the Louisiana Gaming Control Board that a plan to sell four casino properties in Las Vegas and New Orleans was a "fraudulent transaction" because the properties were worth between $1.1 billion and $2.2 billion more than the $2 billion selling price. In March 2014, the Second Lien Holders sent a letter to Caesars alleging the company and its subsidiary had breached their fiduciary duties because they had improperly transferred assets to affiliated entities. Caesars alleged the lien holders knew that the company would be obligated to disclose the statements contained in the letter in an 8-K filing with the SEC, and that those statements -- along with the statements their representatives made in the regulatory hearings in Illinois and Louisiana -- would be disseminated to the public through the news media. In their motion to dismiss Caesars' claims with regard to the statements made at the regulatory hearings, the lien holders argued that Caesars' defamation claims are barred by New York Civil Rights Law Sec. 76 -- the so-called anti-SLAPP law, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Citing a 2014 decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Southampton Day Camp Realty, LLC v. Gormon, 118 AD3d 976, 977, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich wrote in Caesars that the state's anti-SLAPP statute is designed to "protect citizens facing litigation arising from their public petitioning." But she wrote that claims arising from statements made at the regulatory hearings are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which prevents civil actions against "'petitioning legislatures, administrative bodies and the courts' even if the defendant's actions had an 'anticompetitive or otherwise injurious purpose or effect,'" (see Tuosto v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2007 WL 2398507, at *5 [SDNY 2007]). Caesars argues that its tortious interference claim is still viable under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine's "sham" exception, which the Second Department wrote in its 2008 decision in Singh v. Sukhram, 56 AD3d 187, 192, applies in situations where a party attempts to use the governmental process as an anti-competitive weapon. To apply the "sham" exception, the Second Department wrote, the claim must survive a two-prong test. To satisfy the first prong, a defendant's conduct must be "objectively baseless with no reasonable expectation of success." To satisfy the second prong, a defendant must act with the intent of interfering directly with the business relationships of a competitor. If the claim does not satisfy the first prong of the test, the sham exception cannot apply, the court wrote. Judge Kornreich wrote in Caesars that the casino chain was unsuccessful in meeting the first part of the test. "Under this standard, it is not enough for CEC to be in the right; the Second Lien Holders' claims must, essentially, be frivolous." Caesars made no allegations that the claims that the lien holders representatives presented at the regulatory hearings had no chance to influence regulators' decisions, she said. Additionally, despite the lien holders' statements, both the Illinois and Louisiana gaming boards voted to approve the Caesars plans before them. But the judge said "establishing frivolity requires more than pointing to a favorable outcome." "It is axiomatic that not all losing argument are frivolous," she wrote. With regard to the statements the lien holders made in a letter to Caesars that ended up in an SEC filing, Judge Kornreich ruled that Caesars cannot claim defamation on the letter because the lien holders did not present the letter to a third party. Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman partners Eric Seiler, Philippe Adler and Jason Rubinstein appeared for Caesars. In addition to Mr. Levinson, Bruce Bennett, another Jones Day partner also based in Los Angeles, and New York-based Jones Day associate Alex McBride represented the lien holders. Just hours after Judge Kornreich handed down her decision, Caesars announced that it reached a deal with the Second Lien Holders in which the company would contribute an additional $200 million in convertible notes to the creditors if they vote in favor of the company's reorganization plan. CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Monaghan" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel R. Monaghan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05524-GBD (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CERNER CORPORATION: Faces "Letterman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Letterman, S. and Rowland, S. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv- 00534-BCW (W.D. Mo., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week. Cerner Corporation supplies health care information technology solutions, services, devices, and hardware to hospitals and clinics throughout the United States and abroad. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com COLE COUNTY, MO: Limits Detainees Clothing, "Ingram" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fineola Ingram, Justin Simmons, and Brian Boykin, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Cole County, Greg White, and John Wheeler, Case No. 2:15-cv-04156-NKL (W.D. Mo., July 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of limiting pretrial detainees and inmates serving sentences to a single set of clothing and undergarments. Cole County is a political subdivision in the State of Missouri. Greg White is the duly elected, qualified, and acting Sheriff of Cole County, State of Missouri. John Wheeler is Chief Deputy of the Cole County Sheriff's Department. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason H. Ludwig, Esq. CARSON & COIL, PC 515 East High Street, P.O. Box 28 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: (573) 636-2177 Facsimile: (573) 636-7119 E-mail: jason.l@carsoncoil.com - and - Roger G. Brown, Esq. ROGER G. BROWN & ASSOCIATES 216 East McCarty Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 634-8501 Facsimile: (573) 634-7679 E-mail: jclaw@rogerbrownlaw.com CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that Defendants' motion to dismiss a Securities Class Action Litigation is fully briefed and pending with the Court. "We and three of our current and former executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Texas, In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action")," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013, and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought." The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all of these claims. Defendants filed this motion on December 15, 2014, and supplemented this motion in April 2015, after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that extended the class period from August 31, 2014, to December 9, 2014. Defendants' motion (including the supplement to this motion) is fully briefed and pending with the Court. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any this litigation. CROSSROADS LLC: Removed "Vanderau" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Cassandra Jean Vanderau, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cecil Wade Warren and Crossroads LLC, Case No. 50-cv-15-900243, was removed from the Marshall County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Middle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01188-JEO to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. Teresa Ryder Mastando, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com teri@mastandoartrip.com The Defendant is represented by: Mac B. Greaves, Esq. Sarah C. Blutter, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP One Federal Place 1819 5th Avenue North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-5200 Facsimile: (205) 244-5400 E-mail: mgreaves@joneswalker.com sblutter@joneswalker.com DISH ONE: Named in TCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------- Shaun Zinck, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a satellite television company is being sued for allegedly contacting consumers on cell phones and violating federal law. Carrie Couser filed the lawsuit on June 18 in the United States District Court in California against Dish One Satellite, claiming the company illegally contacted her on her cell phone and invaded her privacy. The lawsuit said Dish One violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which is in place to "prevent calls and text messages like the ones" received by Couser. Couser said she has received numerous phone calls from Dish looking to sell her services. Couser said at one point a Dish One worker showed up to her home, but she declined the service. Couser added she filled out a form in 2012 to receive Dish One television services, but she never followed through. The lawsuit contends Dish One obtained Couser's cell phone number through the form she filled out. However, Couser never gave Dish One permission to contact her on her cell phone, she says. She said she has asked Dish One to remove her from the list and to not call her again, but the company has not complied. The lawsuit seeks class status for those who received unwanted calls from Dish One, and is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages. Cosuer is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Suren N. Weerasuriya of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills, Calif. United States District Court for the Central District of California case number 5:15-cv-01194. DOLE FOOD: CEO Accused of Shortchanging Investors ------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mordock, writing for USA Today, reported that a Delaware lawsuit alleged Dole Food Co.'s CEO shortchanged shareholders by more than $1 billion when the company went private in 2013. Several pension funds claimed Dole CEO David Murdock plotted with Deutsche Bank AG to reduce the company's value in order to take it private for less than market value. Stuart Grant, a Wilmington attorney representing the pension funds, claimed in court documents that Murdock "manipulated the company to his advantage." Grant also alleged Murdock's personal relationship with Deutsche Bank prevented the financial institution from seeking alternatives to the proposed $1.2 billion buyout. Murdock's $13.50-per-share offer was more than $10 below Dole's stock value, according to court documents. At the time of the transaction, Murdock, who is worth an estimated $3 billion, owned about 40% of the company. The 92-year-old CEO, who is ranked as the 190th richest American according to Forbes magazine, is accused by the pension funds of driving Dole's stock price down to acquire the remaining 60%. A Dole Food spokeswoman did not respond to multiple calls and e- mail requests for comment. The CEO faced the accusations in front of Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster III. A decision is expected to be issued within the next 90 days because of the Chancery Court's self-imposed rule that all cases must be disposed in under three months. Grant told The News Journal he expects a decision late August or early September. Bruce Silverstein, an attorney with the Wilmington law firm of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, did not return phone calls seeking comment. Silverstein countered the pension funds' claims. He accused the plaintiffs of trying to regain control of the company through the court system. He also argued that there was no evidence Murdock manipulated the buyout process for his own gain. David Hennes, an attorney with the New York office of Fried Frank, defended Deutsche Bank, which worked as an adviser on the deal. He said the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence the bank committed any wrongdoing. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit include the City of Providence, Laborers' Pension Fund and Massachusetts Laborer's Annuity Fund. Charles Elson, a professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware, said the court could use the case to make a statement on future transactions in which a company's management buys out shareholders to privatize the company. "Management buyouts create value for themselves, not the shareholders," Elson said. "It's the ultimate conflict of interest and why the Chancery Court needs to look at this very carefully." Grant said he didn't know what Laster would do in terms of opining on management buyouts, but agreed with Elson that management buyouts often deprive shareholders of fair value. "There is something inherently wrong with inside management, knowing all about the company, buying out the company from shareholders," he said. "There is an incredible informational disadvantage to shareholders." DFRF ENTERPRISES: Charged in Alleged $15-Mil. Ponzi Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Jack Newsham, writng for The Boston Globe, reported that federal regulators allege two Massachusetts men were part of a $15 million scam that preyed on Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking investors -- a case with echoes of the TelexFree Ponzi scheme. Seven men, including one from Malden and one from Revere, are accused of defrauding more than 1,400 investors worldwide with a series of increasingly fabulous claims about gold mining investments offered by their company, DFRF Enterprises. The group, led by Florida resident Daniel Fernandes Rojo Filho, was also the subject of a class-action lawsuit in Middlesex County about its alleged scheme earlier. "Virtually all of the defendants' public statements about DFRF have been materially false and misleading," the SEC said in its civil complaint, which was unsealed. "There are no gold mines. There is no credit line. There is no charity work. There is no stock registration. There is no insurance." Judge Patti B. Saris of the US District Court for Massachusetts issued an emergency restraining order June 30 to prevent the accused from destroying evidence or soliciting money. The alleged scheme began in June 2014 and accelerated after the group began "flooding" YouTube with videos encouraging people to invest, according to the SEC. The agency alleged DFRF took in $10.9 million from March through May. The operation grew through claims of 10 percent monthly returns, promises that some profits were donated to third-world charities, and commission payments for recruiting new investors, the SEC alleged. Yet Filho and the codefendants allegedly paid out only $1.6 million to investors and spent much of the money on themselves, the SEC said. Filho is alleged to have siphoned more than $6 million from DFRF, including $1.8 million in cash, $500,000 for travel, and $2.5 million to acquire a Rolls-Royce, two Lamborghinis, two Ferraris, two Cadillacs, and a Mercedes. Wanderley M. Dalman of Revere and Gaspar C. Jesus of Malden were also charged in the case. Each received more than $50,000 in payments from DFRF over the past year, according to the SEC's complaint. The agency said both made false statements about the company in online videos. Neither man had a working phone number listed, nor did the federal docket not specify an attorney for any of the accused. DFRF, Filho, and an attorney for the company did not immediately respond to an e-mail or phone calls seeking comment. An unverified Twitter account that appeared to be affiliated with the company said Filho was conferring with lawyers and would make a statement. The SEC allegations come just over a year after the collapse of TelexFree, a Marlborough company that declared bankruptcy after taking in about $1 billion from 1.9 million participants. TelexFree, which had previously been shut down in Brazil, charged people to sign up and paid them for posting ads online for an online phone service, even though the ads generated virtually no sales. The company's founders were charged with criminal fraud shortly after the scheme collapsed. Like TelexFree, authorities say DFRF thrived online. A YouTube channel that posts Spanish and Portuguese DFRF videos has racked up more than 130,000 views. A Twitter profile purporting to represent the company has more than 35,000 followers, and it has tweeted more than 100,000 times. In response to a Globe reporter's request for comment, it tweeted a link to a video that claimed to show the company was legitimate, but it showed only that it was a registered corporation in Massachusetts. In February, after two men sued the company in Middlesex Superior Court for taking around $180,000 from them, Filho told the MetroWest Daily News that he ran a successful gold mining company and that he was not orchestrating a Ponzi scheme. He said the men who sued him might have confused his business with TelexFree. He said he had no ties to TelexFree. Yet the SEC accused Filho of paying more than $310,000 to one of TelexFree's top salesmen. The commission's complaint said Filho made several payments to Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos, a TelexFree agent who is currently under home confinement in Florida after being charged in May for fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents. The Middlesex lawsuit has been settled, according to the plaintiffs' attorney, Evans Carter, who did not disclose the terms. But Filho's name has surfaced in several other lawsuits. In 2010, authorities sought to confiscate nine vehicles, hundreds of gold bars, and more than $10 million held in dozens of accounts, according to media reports and court filings. And the SEC said he assented to the forfeiture of more than $25 million in 2013. DUNKIN DONUTS: Ex-Employee Files Suit For Overtime Denial --------------------------------------------------------- Carol Ostrow, writing for PennRecord, reported that a Kittanning woman filed a class action complaint lawsuit against her former Pittsburgh-based employer on multiple allegations of federal and state employment law infringements between 2012 and 2015. Wendy L. Wachter sued Heartland Restaurant Group, doing business as Dunkin' Donuts, in the U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania on June 12, alleging violations of employment law to recover damages for alleged non-payment of overtime wages. The plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The suit states that all employees are entitled to receive premium overtime pay at time and a half their regular hourly rate for work done in excess of 40 hours weekly. The plaintiff worked at various Western Pennsylvania locations of the business from November 2012 through April 2, 2015. Wachter alleges that she and others in her position of assistant managers are not exempt from the requirement and that the putative class members have been unlawfully classified as exempt. According to court documents, Dunkin' Donuts operates 29 stores in the western portion of the state, employing at least 10 assistant managers. The suit estimates the class size to be at least 15 individuals. Wachter seeks declarative judgment, injunctive action, court orders to establish plaintiff and counsel as class representatives, and judgment in the class's favor equal to the amount of overtime compensation due, plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Wachter is represented by Charles Saul and Kyle McGee of Margolis Edelstein in Pittsburgh. DUPONT CO: Faces 2 Test Trials Over C-8 Contamination ----------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Kary, writing for The Salt Lake tribune, reported that DuPont Co. can't force people claiming they were harmed by a chemical once used in Teflon brand products to prove the level of their individual exposure, but it can refer to dosage levels in trials later. DuPont faces two test trials in Ohio in September and November, chosen from 3,500 lawsuits filed by people who claim to have developed various diseases as a result of drinking water that was contaminated by C-8, or PFOA. A win by the company of the test trials might dissuade others from pursuing the lawsuits, while a plaintiffs' victory could push DuPont to settlement talks in the other cases. Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs will be picked up by DuPont's new spinoff Chemours Co. "DuPont is expected to remain a named party" in the lawsuits, while Chemours has agreed to pay DuPont for liabilities from legal proceedings relating to its business lines, including the C-8 lawsuits, said a Chemours spokeswoman, Janet Smith. DuPont spun off the unit that made C-8, including it in Chemours, which became a new company on July 1. The chemical used to make the Teflon brand products has been phased out, the company said. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus in Columbus, Ohio, clarified a past ruling in which he rejected DuPont's request for the plaintiffs to prove their level of exposure to C-8. The company already agreed not to contest such issues in a related 2004 settlement that found the chemical is linked to six diseases including kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, and thyroid disease, Sargus said. "DuPont has contractually agreed to a finding of general causation," Sargus said in court papers. His explanation comes 14 years into a case that began as a class action in 2001 with 80,000 plaintiffs. A 2004 settlement determined that a panel of independent scientists would study C- 8's links to disease among the group, and only those whose sickness had "probable links" to C-8 exposure could sue. After seven years, in 2011 and 2012, the science panel said there were "probable links" to six diseases including kidney cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. It found "no probable link" for 40 other diseases. Under the settlement DuPont agreed not to contest that C-8 was the general cause of the diseases. Of 80,000 initial plaintiffs, 3,500 filed cases claiming exposure to the six diseases. DuPont had tried to argue that the dose of C-8 varied among plaintiffs and, in some low-dosage cases, no statistically significant associations were found between C-8 and the linked disease. "We believe the amount of exposure to PFOA is an important factor for the jury to consider," Dan Turner, a DuPont spokesman, said in a statement. Sargus said nothing prevented the company from making those arguments at the trials. Separately, the judge denied DuPont's request to limit class-wide claims against it based on eight different claims including product liability, violations of state consumer- protection laws, and pain and suffering. The judge granted DuPont's request to rule out some of those claims in individual cases. The new company, Chemours, inherited 37 active plants globally that produce materials such as titanium dioxide, a pigment that adds opaqueness to paints, and fluorochemicals such as Teflon nonstick coatings. It also has 171 polluted sites. DuPont investors have been given one Chemours share for every five DuPont shares they own. Chemours will owe DuPont a $4 billion dividend for share buybacks, too. Chemours shares, which have been trading since June 19, last traded at $15.19, down 27 percent. EDISON INT'L: 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 California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Edison International ("Edison" or the "Company") (NYSE: EIX) securities between July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period") alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). Edison, through its subsidiaries, generates and supplies electricity. Southern California Edison ("SCE") is Edison's largest subsidiary. SCE is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (the "CPUC"). In October 2012, the CPUC began investigating the closure of two reactor units of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS"), a nuclear power plant in Southern California owned and operated by SCE. Following this investigation, Edison reached a $3.3 billion settlement, pursuant to which Edison would refund customers for excess charges they had incurred to support the SONGS units after they were taken offline and never returned to service. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Edison made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision makers were more extensive than the Company had reported to CPUC; (ii) that belated disclosure of Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC personnel would jeopardize the Company's $3.3 billion SONGS settlement; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 4, 2015, a SFGate article reported that SCE documents revealed a previously unreported May 2014 meeting between CPUC and SCE executives, at which the parties discussed donating millions of dollars to a UCLA institute where a CPUC executive was an advisor. On this news, Edison shares declined $2.87 per share over two days of trading to close at $59.60 on May 6, 2015. On June 24, 2015, in response to a report released by Strumwasser & Woocher on June 22, 2015 which described the ex parte meetings as "frequent, pervasive, and sometimes outcome-determinative," the Utility Reform Network recommended SCE be charged with "fraud by concealment" and urged the CPUC to set aside the SONGS settlement and reopen its investigation. On this news, Edison shares declined $1.56 per share to close at $56.07 on June 24, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased Edison securities during the Class Period. If you purchased Edison securities as described above, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security, 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 September 4, 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. If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Edison shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. EDISON INT'L: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of Edison International EIX, +0.64% securities from July 31, 2014 through June 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses by asserting claims under the federal securities laws. To join the Edison International class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-661.html,or contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision makers were more extensive than the Company had reported to CPUC; and (2) belated disclosure of Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC personnel would jeopardize the Company's $3.3 billion dollar SONGS Settlement. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-661.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. The Rosen Firm may be reached at: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com EL CAFETERO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcelino Gonzalez-Uriza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. El Cafetero Corp., Amparo Ramtrez, and Jorge A. Valencla, Case No. 1:15-cv-05527-AKH (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bakery located at 124B East Post Road, White Plains, New York 10601. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com ETSY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased shares of ETSY, Inc. ("ETSY" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ETSY), during the period between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement; (ii) Brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees and commissions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Etsy's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 11, 2015, a report in Associated Press stated that Wedbush Capital Partners analyst Gil Luria said that research indicates that as many as 2 million items on Etsy may potentially be either counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. Additionally, "[i]f Etsy chooses to continue to ignore these potential violations, we believe it could tarnish its brand with both buyers and sellers," he wrote. Following this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86 or 8.19% to close at $20.85. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in ETSY you have until July 13, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. EXPEDIA: Liable for Sales Tax on Hotel Rooms, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that online travel companies such as Expedia and Travelocity are on the hook for more than $60 million in back sales taxes after a Washington appeals court ruled on July 23 that the companies are liable for sales tax on hotel rooms they sell through their websites. The three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the travel companies' argument that the only taxable transaction was between the customer and the hotel. The court said that the D.C. government can tax the difference between the actual cost of the room, which the hotel receives, and the higher rate the travel companies charge the customer in order to make a profit. "[T]he meaning of the statute is clear: by imposing tax on the 'sale or charge . . . for any room . . . furnished to transients by any hotel,' the sales tax statute is taxing the sales transaction by which a customer purchases a hotel room in the District of Columbia," Judge Corinne Beckwith wrote for the court. "The OTCs' retail margins are a part of that sale." Last year, the travel companies--Expedia Inc., Hotels.com LP, Hotwire Inc., Orbitz LLC, priceline.com, and Travelocity.com LP-- and the city reached an agreement on how much money in back sales taxes the companies would owe if they lost on appeal. According to that agreement, the companies will owe more than $60 million for hotel room sales between 1998 and 2011. In announcing the agreement last year, the Office of the Attorney General said that if the city prevailed, the monetary recovery would be largest ever for the District through a case that was litigated. "This is a huge victory for the District's taxpayers, and it ensures that online travel companies have to follow the same rules as everyone else," D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a statement. Darrel Hieber -- darrel.hieber@skadden.com -- a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, argued for the online travel companies. He also could not immediately be reached for comment. The District charges a sales tax of 14.5 percent on the gross receipts of hotel room sales. The online travel companies argued that the hotel, which furnished the room, was the only taxable vendor when it came to sales taxes. The city countered that the tax should apply to the sale or charge for any room furnished by a hotel, even if the seller -- in this case, the online travel companies -- did not actually furnish the room. The court found that the city's interpretation of local tax law was reasonable. Judge Beckwith wrote that "an examination of the District's sales tax provisions as a whole lends support to the District's contention -- and the well-reasoned conclusion of the trial court -- that the tax is levied on the 'sale or charge' for the service, rather than on the provision of the service itself." The court also rejected the online travel companies' argument that it would be unfair to force them to pay back taxes, given the city's delay in pursuing legal action. "It is clear from looking at the OTCs' statements to investors and to the SEC that the OTCs understood, since at least 2002, that they might owe sales tax on the full amount of their merchant model sales," Judge Beckwith wrote. The ruling was not a total loss for the online travel companies. The appeals court upheld the trial judge's ruling that the companies could not be taxed on the "sales tax reimbursement" they charged to customers, which covered the sales tax that the hotel owed for the amount of money it received from the sale of the room. Judge Theodore Newman joined Judge Beckwith's opinion. Judge Roy McLeese III agreed that the travel companies were subject to the sales tax, but he wrote in a separate opinion that he would hold the travel companies liable for tax on the full amount of the sale to the customer, including the "sales tax reimbursement." FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against California Class-Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. are defending against the California Class-Action Litigation, the Companies said in their Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2015. In October 2014, putative class action cases naming the Partnership and the Operating Partnership as defendants were filed in California relating to residual propane remaining in the tank after use. The Partnership and the Operating Partnership believe they have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. The Partnership and the Operating Partnership do not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time. FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Minsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Yehoshua C. Minsky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04178 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FINGER ONE: Removed "Doe" Suit to South District California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Finger One, Inc. d/b/a Goldfinger's Gentlemen's Club, Case No. 37-02015-00017714-CU-BT- CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01580-CAB-NLS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS AND TOMASEVIC LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer B. Rubin, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHEN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 314-1500 Facsimile: (858) 314-1501 E-mail: jbrubin@mintz.com FIVE BELOW: Lead Plaintiff Filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Five Below, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing all claims without prejudice. A putative class action was filed on January 9, 2015, against Five Below, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former senior officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who purchased our publicly traded securities between June 5, 2014 and December 4, 2014. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company. By Order entered March 30, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of counsel. On May 27, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing all claims without prejudice. FLOWERS FOODS: 4 Complaints Filed Alleging Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------ Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the Company is aware of four other complaints alleging misclassification claims that have been filed in four other jurisdictions. On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking Company of Jamestown, LLC. Plaintiffs are or were distributors of th eCompany's Jamestown subsidiary who contend they were misclassified as independent contractors. The action sought class certification on behalf of a class comprised of independent distributors of the Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as independent contractors. In March 2013, the court conditionally certified the class action for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March 23, 2015, the court re-affirmed its FLSA certification decision and also certified claims under state law. At this time, the company is also aware of four other complaints alleging misclassification claims that have been filed in four other jurisdictions. The company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorously defending these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues presented, the company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits. FORD MOTOR: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Apartheid Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that victims of apartheid in South Africa cannot sue IBM Corp. and Ford Motor Co. in New York because they cannot show that the companies' alleged offending behavior occurred in the United States, a federal appeals court said on July 27. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against lawsuits brought 13 years ago against the Armonk, New York-based IBM and Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford. In its ruling, a three-judge panel cited a 2013 Supreme Court ruling severely limiting the legal reach of the 1789 Alien Tort Statute. The law was created in part to deal with piracy claims but in recent decades human rights lawyers have used it to pursue damages from individuals or companies alleged to have supported abuses around the world. In a decision written by Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes, the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan upheld a decision by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin last year that tossed out the lawsuits because the conduct at issue occurred abroad. Close to 80 companies initially were named in the lawsuits, but the vast majority of those claims were rejected. The lawsuits alleged that Ford provided specialized vehicles to the South African police and securities forces to help enforce apartheid -- the country's former system of white minority rule -- and shared information with government officials about anti- apartheid and union activists. They said IBM designed technologies that were essential for racial separation under apartheid. The 2nd Circuit said the claims against Ford fail because it was the automaker's South African subsidiary that was alleged to have assembled and sold specialized vehicles to the government. The subsidiary also was accused of providing information to the South African government about anti-apartheid activities. The appeals court said Ford could not be held directly responsible for its subsidiary's actions because well-settled principles of corporate law treat parent corporations and their subsidiaries as legally distinct entities. As for IBM, the 2nd Circuit said it cannot be held liable for the actions of its South African subsidiary, though the judges noted that the lawsuits allege that the parent company acted with knowledge that its acts might facilitate apartheid policies. Still, it found the allegations fell short of showing IBM acted purposefully. "Indeed, plaintiffs do not -- and cannot -- plausibly allege that by developing hardware and software to collect innocuous population data, IBM's purpose was to denationalize black South Africans and further the aims of a brutal regime," the court said. In a statement, Ford said it agreed with the ruling. "After 91 years of manufacturing in South Africa, we continue to be committed to growing our business there and giving back to the community," the statement read. Lawyers for other parties in the case did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. FREMONT M: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Payment Packing --------------------------------------------------- Susan Philips, an individual, and on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Fremont M, LLC, d/b/a Fletcher Jones Motorcars of Fremont, Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15778168 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged illegal pattern and practice of unlawful payment packing, overcharging consumers for prior loan balance on trade-in vehicles and failing to refund the overcharge and violating the Single Document Rule of the Consumers Legal-Remedies Act. Fremont M, LLC is engaged in the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public, and, taking vehicles in trade. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC is a financial institution engaged in the business of buying lease contracts and collecting payments made by consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Liberty, Esq. LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1 Foster City, CA 94404 Telephone: (650) 341-0300 Facsimile: (650) 341-0302 GOLD CLUB: Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable in Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that an arbitration agreement a stripper was allegedly told to sign right before her shift started was unconscionable because it barred her ability to bring her wage-and-hour collective and class actions in the arbitration setting, a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled. In determining whether the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff Jessica Herzfeld allowed for class and collective arbitration, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had to rely on the thin amount of case law available since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in 2014 in Opalinski v. Robert Half International that district courts must decide if arbitration clauses allow for class arbitration. "Due to Opalinski's recent vintage, we have minimal guidance in deciding whether the 2013 agreement [Herzfeld signed] could be interpreted to allow for collective FLSA or class arbitration," Judge Kearney said in Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor. "As the Supreme Court has not as yet required the arbitration agreement to expressly recite an agreement to class arbitration, it is possible to find an implicit agreement to authorize class arbitration but such an agreement cannot be 'inferred solely from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate.'" Judge Kearney found the agreement Ms. Herzfeld signed with the Gold Club in Philadelphia did not expressly or implicitly show an agreement to allow for collective or class arbitration. The agreement refers only to arbitration affecting "both parties," and does not mention parties of any other type. Kearney found there was thus no meeting of the minds on a "monumental change" to the agreement such as allowing not just for individual arbitration but for class arbitration or collective arbitration. He said a simple mention in the arbitration agreement of the American Arbitration Association rules and regulations also does not expand the agreement to include class or collective actions. After finding the arbitration agreement did not allow for Ms. Herzfeld's collective action, Judge Kearney looked to whether it was unconscionable. "Courts have viewed the loss of a statutory right to a collective action permissible, but only in the context of a contractual waiver," Judge Kearney said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Judge Kearney said Ms. Herzfeld did not waive her collective or class action right, but rather lost it under operation of law because the arbitration clause does not recite that right. "Paradoxically, by not including language addressing a collective or class action in arbitration, Gold Club is able to now argue Herzfeld loses her statutory right to a collective action and ability to bring her class claims in arbitration," Judge Kearney said. Because the arbitration agreement does not allow for class or collective arbitration, an arbitrator would not be able to give Herzfeld the full scope of Fair Labor Standards Act remedies, he said. "Consequently, we find the arbitration provision imposing an involuntary, unknowing loss of FLSA collective action and class action rights is substantively unconscionable," Judge Kearney said. Gold Club had argued Ms. Herzfeld ratified the arbitration clause when she took it home for her "mother/attorney's" review and returned to work for almost a year before filing the suit. But Judge Kearney said he was shown no case law that allowed for the ratification of an unconscionable clause. Judge Kearney denied Gold Club's motion to compel arbitration in the case. Ms. Herzfeld sued Gold Club under the FLSA on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. She is seeking unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week and liquidated damages. She also seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all Gold Club dancers under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Edwin Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela in Pittsburgh represented Ms. Herzfeld and the putative class. Bradley J. Shafer and Matthew Hoffer of Shafer & Associates in Lansing, Michigan, along with Pasquale J. Colavita of Philadelphia, represented Gold Club. None of the attorneys were immediately available for comment. GRAND & PULASKI: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Villalva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grand & Pulaski Citgo, Inc., d/b/a Grand & Pulaski Citgo, and John Scali, Case No. 1:15-cv-06236 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Grand & Pulaski Citgo, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that operates a gas station and car wash shop. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq. Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604-3207 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net HIKO ENERGY: Directed by Atty Gen. to Return $1.25MM to Customers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Nearing, writing for Timesunion.com, reported that a Rockland County energy marketing company is being forced by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to return about $1.25 million to customers because of false claims of lower power bills before bills actually skyrocketed and for tricking customers into switching energy accounts. Hiko Energy LLC, located in Monsey, already has been forced by regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to return more than $3.8 million to thousands of customers because of similar deceptive and high-pressure sales tactics. Schneiderman said his office found Hiko telemarketers and door-to- door salespeople "lured consumers with false promises of lower rates, and then fleeced customers with much higher bills; enrolled new customers without their knowledge or consent; and made it difficult for customers to cancel their enrollments in a timely manner." That included about 25,000 current and former customers from all parts of the state from 2011 to 2014, including the Capital Region. Customers who believe they were overcharged by Hiko can file claim forms online at www.go.bbb.org/ny-hiko or receive a claim form from Schneiderman's office by calling (212) 358-2857. All claims must be filed by Aug. 15. The Times Union reported that Hiko customers filed more than 170 complaints against the company in 2012 with the state Public Service Commission. Through April, Hiko generated 19 complaints of deceptive marketing practices to the PSC. According to Schneiderman's office, Hiko workers also tricked consumers into providing account numbers which the company used to transfer their accounts; falsely claimed that they represented consumers' utilities; and obtained consent to switch utilities from individuals who were not authorized to provide such consent. The settlement also requires Hiko to prevent deceptive practices in the future, retrain sales representatives, record communications between customers and customer service and sales representatives, and discipline its workers who violate the law. Hiko did not immediately respond to an email from the Times Union seeking comment. The New York case is the latest episode where state regulators have found the five-year-old energy marketing company deceived consumers. In January, New Jersey obtained a $2.1 million settlement with Hiko that called for $1.85 million to be returned to customers whose bills jumped after they switched to Hiko from their local utilities for electric or natural gas supplies. In May, the company agreed to pay nearly $2 million in refunds and penalties in Pennsylvania because of similar deceptive practices. Hiko also agreed to cease accepting new customers in that state through June 2016, and to change its marketing practices. And in October 2014, a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania accused the company of luring customers with a "bait-and-switch" scheme. The suit claimed that customers, promised by Hiko that bills would drop, instead saw bills substantially increase. "Defendant's sales pitch is in reality false and misleading in that the rates actually charged to consumers are not competitive and bear little relation to prevailing market conditions," according to the lawsuit. "As a consequence of this scheme, consumers across the nation are essentially being scammed out of millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity." Plaintiffs include "100 or more" Hiko customers in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania. HOME PROPERTIES: E.D. Pa. Trims "Jarzyna" FDCPA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P. et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-4191 (E.D. Pa.), is brought on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendant Home Properties L.P. (Home) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and Pennsylvania's Landlord and Tenant Act. Plaintiff also brought a claim of civil conspiracy under Pennsylvania common law. Plaintiff brought the following six claims: FDCPA violations, against Home and FCO (Count I); FCEUA violations, against Home and FCO (Count II); UTPCPL violations, against Home and FCO (Count III); Landlord and Tenant Act violations, against Home only (Count IV); civil conspiracy, against Home and FCO (Count V); and unjust enrichment, against Home and FCO (Count VI). District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in the Memorandum dated June 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EGqGR7from Leagle.com, granted in part the parties' motions for summary judgment: or the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the parties' motions for summary judgment, as follows: a) COUNT I -- FDCPA * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and Home's motion for summary judgment is granted. * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to the claim that FCO's AV2 and HD1AC letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a). * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to the following claims: (1) failing to identify as a debt collector when leaving voice messages on Plaintiff's cell phone, in violation of Sections 1692e(11) and 1692d(6); and (2) attempting to collect a debt that Plaintiff did not owe, in violation of Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2), and 1692e(10). * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the following claims: (1) lacking the required notice on the HD1A letter, in violation of Sec. 1692g(a); (2) failing to properly verify the disputed debt, in violation Sec. 1692g(b); and (3) all other claims Plaintiff may have under the FDCPA. b) COUNT II -- FCEUA * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the thirty-day notice fee claim and denied as to all other claims. Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the thirty-day notice fee claim and granted as to all other claims. * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on his FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent the Court denied summary judgment to both parties on Plaintiff's FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted on all other claims. c) COUNT III -- UTPCPL * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the thirty-day notice fee claim and denied as to all other claims. Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the thirty-day notice fee claim and granted as to all other claims. * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on his FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent the Court denied summary judgment to both parties on Plaintiff's FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted on all other claims. d) COUNT IV -- Landlord and Tenant Act * Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is granted. e) COUNT V -- Civil Conspiracy * Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Defendant FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. In addition, Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment on its Counterclaim is denied and Home's motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice. Therefore, the only remaining claims in this case are the following: * Count I (FDCPA), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and HD1AC letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a); * Count II (FCEUA), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and HD1AC letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a); * Count III (UTPCPL), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and HD1AC letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a); and * Defendant Home's Counterclaim. Mariusz G. Jarzyna is represented by: Jacob T. Thielen, Esq. Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq. O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C. 22 E. Main Street Fleetwood, PA 19522 Tel:(610)944-1959 The Defendant is represented by: Candidus K. Dougherty, Esq. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC 5100 Tilghman Street, Suite 230 Allentown, PA 18104 Tel: (610) 395-5903 HUDSON CLOTHING: Falsely Labeled Jeans, "Schulert" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Maya Schulert, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hudson Clothing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00276-JDL (D. Me., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hudson jeans, that were falsely marketed and labeled as "Made in USA". Contrary to the "Made in USA" claim, however, the Jeans were manufactured or produced from component parts that were manufactured outside of the United States. Hudson Clothing, LLC is a California limited liability company that operates retail clothing stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Edmond Mittel, Esq. Michael P. Asen, Esq. MITTELASEN, LLC PO Box 427 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 775-3101 Facsimile: (207) 871-0683 E-mail: rmittel@mittelasen.com masen@mittelasen.com - and - Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - John Donboli, Esq. DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 793-6244 Facsimile: (858) 793-6005 E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com INDIANA: 'Serious Sex Offenders' Fight for Right to Worship ----------------------------------------------------------- Tricia Harte, writing for WNDU.com, reported that two registered sex offenders are fighting for their religious rights after a new Indiana law effectively bans them from certain places of worship. Indiana Code 34-42-4-14 prevents "serious sex offenders" from attending religious worship when the place of worship is considered "school property," even though school is not in session during the time services occur. Violation of the code is a felony. On July 1, 2015, the ACLU of Indiana filed suit, challenging the state's statute. Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana said many people are concerned by the new law because it prohibits them from going onto school property even if their child is attending that school. Even more concerning, Falk said, is when that ban extends to religious institutions considered to be "school property." "I think that whenever you are banning someone from a place of worship, that is very, very serious," Falk explained. The lawsuit, filed in Elkhart Superior Court claims: "Banning sex offenders from, for example, church, because there are students on the same grounds on, is irrational and violates the due process of the law protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also violates Indiana's newly enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act." According to Falk, the ACLU of Indiana is seeking to have the case certified as class action. The complaint lists two registered sex offenders, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, as the primary plaintiffs. INVENSENSE INC: Facing Five Class Actions by Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------- Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2015, that the Company is facing five class action lawsuits filed by shareholders. On January 7, 2015 a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives (the "Securities Case"). Jim McMillan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. A second complaint, William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., was filed on January 12, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. A third complaint, Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., was filed on January 16, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. A fourth complaint, William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., was filed on January 29, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. A fifth complaint, Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., was filed on March 11, 2015. The Company has undertaken an evaluation of these complaints. In light of the unresolved legal issues, while a loss is reasonably possible, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and, accordingly, cannot estimate the potential financial impact on the Company's business, operating results, cash flows or financial position. J. C. PENNEY: Defending Against Marcus and Johnson Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is defending against the Marcus and Johnson class action securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. "The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper." Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in November, 2014. Plaintiff has moved to amend the consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported class in the Johnson case. Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff's lawsuit generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar relief. On November 11, 2014, defendants filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the Marcus lawsuit. On November 18, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend them," the Company said. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss ERISA Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and certain present and former members of Corporation's Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan"). The class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2014. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Filed Answer to Employment Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. has filed an answer to the Employment Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification. The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs recently filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit and the Company has answered. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Court Granted Certification in Spann Case ------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the court granted plaintiff's request for certification in the case, Spann v. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for certification of a class consisting of all people who, between November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the stated original or regular price (excluding those who only received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases. "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. JACO OIL: Class Settlement Has Initial OK; Final Hearing on 9/25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Linda De Santos sought and obtained preliminary approval of the class settlement with Defendants in the case, LINDA DE SANTOS, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-0738-JLT (E.D. Cal.). On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff initiated an action by filing a complaint against Jaco "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," including "other prospective, current, and former employees." Plaintiff alleged Jaco's actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The parties engaged in private mediation with Carl West, who proposed a settlement in the amount of $300,000. After accepting the proposal, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding on May 12, 2015. The parties finalized the proposed settlement on June 10, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement on June 22, 2015. In the motion, Plaintiff sought: (1) conditional certification of a settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement terms; (3) appointment of Plaintiff as the class representative; (4) appointment of Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as Class Counsel; (5) approval of the class notice and related materials; (6) appointment of ILYM Group, Inc., as the claims administrator; and (7) scheduling for final approval of the settlement. Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Order dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/G9A1wUfrom Leagle.com, granted preliminary approval of the class settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable. The Court appointed Linda De Santos as class representative, Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as class counsel and ILYM Group, Inc. as class administrator. The Court also ruled that: -- The Class Representative enhancement request for Plaintiff is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $5,000, subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing; -- Class Counsel's request for fees of not to exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and costs up to $8,500 is granted preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing; -- The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative enhancement fee are due no later than August 21, 2015; -- Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $12,500; -- A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement shall postmark the Request for Exclusion no later than September 11, 2015; -- Any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be filed with the Court and mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than September 11, 2015; -- A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for September 25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff is represented by: Shane Carson Stafford, Esq. SHANBERG, STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP The Atrium 19200 Von Karman Ave # 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949)622-5444 Jaco Oil Company is represented by David Cooper, Esq. -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Connie M. Parker, Esq. -- cparker@kleinlaw.com -- KLEIN DENATALE GOLDNER COOPER ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP JBS USA: Court Rules on EEOC Suit Over Muslim Staff Accomodations ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied JBS USA, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support in the case captioned, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and IRAQ ABADE, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and MARYAN ABDULLE, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. JBS USA, LLC, d/b/a JBS Swift & Company, Defendant, Case No. 10-CV-02103-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.). The case stemmed from a conflict between JBS and several hundred Muslim employees at the JBS beef processing facility in Greeley, Colorado who sought accommodation from JBS for their religious beliefs. The employees and JBS were unable to come to an agreement, leading to the suspension and termination of a large number of Muslim employees after the Ramadan in 2008. On August 30, 2010, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed the lawsuit, claiming that JBS discriminated against its Muslim employees on the basis of religion by engaging in a pattern or practice of retaliation, discriminatory discipline and discharge, harassment, and denying its Muslim employees reasonable religious accommodations. EEOC proposes two accommodations that it claims would permit the Greeley plant's Muslim employees to timely pray in accordance with their religious beliefs. EEOC requests (1) that a regular break be moved to coincide with required prayer times or (2) that Muslim employees be permitted to leave the line for ten to fifteen minutes at their required prayer times as an unscheduled break. On August 8, 2011, the Court issued an order bifurcating this case. The claims before the Court during Phase I are (1) EEOC's claim that JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of denying Muslim employees reasonable religious accommodations, (2) EEOC's retaliation pattern or practice claim, and (3) EEOC's discriminatory discipline and discharge pattern or practice claim, insofar as the latter two claims are based on the events taking place during Ramadan 2008. JBS filed its motion on March 31, 2014. JBS seeks summary judgment on all three of EEOC's Phase I claims. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado In his Order dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/exXXka from Leagle.com, Judge Brimmer, among other things, held that EEOC has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to the effectiveness and facial reasonableness of its proposed accommodations. Plaintiffs are represented by: Diane Smith King, Esq. Kimberly Jo Jones, Esq. KING & GREISEN, LLP 1670 York St Denver, CO 80206 Tel: (303)298-9878 - and - Todd John McNamara, Esq. -- tjm@18thAveLaw.com -- MCNAMARA ROSEMAN & KAZMIERSKI, LLP Defendant is represented by Andrew Wayne Volin, Esq. -- avolin@shermanhoward.com -- Brooke A. Colaizzi, Esq. -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Heather Fox Vickles, Esq. -- hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Kelly K. Robinson, Esq. -- krobinson@shermanhoward.com -- Raymond Myles Deeny, Esq. -- rsiebert@shermanhoward.com -- Walter Vernon Bernie Siebert, Esq. -- wsiebert@shermanhoward.com -- SHERMAN & HOWARD, L.L.C. JLING INC: Faces "Ji" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Junjiang Ji, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Jling Inc. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, Jannen of America, Inc. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, John Zhong E Hu, and Jia Ling Hu, Case No. 2:15-cv- 04194 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 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 in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com KING SUPPLY: Insurer May Intervene in Class Suit, Says 7th Circ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman of Robinson+Cole, in an article for JD Supra, said that liability insurers are sometimes faced with a difficult scenario: Their insured has been sued in a class action with potentially large stakes. The insurer believes they have no duty to defend and a denial of coverage is appropriate. But the result of declining to defend the insured is likely to be a "collusive" class action settlement in which the named plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, agree to a large judgment, with only a relatively small portion of it (if any) collectible against the insured, and the remainder collectible only against the insurer that has denied coverage. A likely scenario where this type of scenario may occur is where the insured has little assets in comparison to the potential liability. The insurer may be confident that its denial of coverage will be upheld. But it cannot be certain of that. And if a court rules that coverage exists, the insurer could be stuck with a very large class action settlement, unless it can challenge the appropriateness of that settlement. One approach an insurer can take in this scenario is move to intervene in the underlying class action. That motion, however, may need to be filed early in the case, according to a recent Seventh Circuit decision. In CE Design Ltd. v. King Supply Co., No. 12-2930, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11117 (7th Cir. June 29, 2015), the plaintiff filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against King Supply, which was insured under CGL and commercial umbrella policies. The insurers denied coverage based primarily on exclusions for TCPA claims. After class certification, King Supply agreed to a $20 million settlement (the policy limits), with only $200,000 (1% of the judgment) executable against King Supply. After the proposed settlement agreement was filed, but before it was approved, the insurers moved to intervene in the case. They also sought a declaratory judgment on coverage separately in a state trial court, and eventually prevailed. The district court held that the insurers' motion to intervene was untimely, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Judge Posner's opinion for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the insurers "should have begun worrying when the suit was filed rather than almost three years later" because "[a]lmost all class actions are settled, and . . . a class action settlement may be the product of tacit collusion between class counsel and a defendant." Id. at *7. Judge Posner wrote that "[a] prospective intervenor must move to intervene as soon as it 'knows or has reason to know that [its] interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation.'" Judge Posner's opinion further noted that "even if the insurers had filed a timely motion to intervene, their interest might well have been deemed too contingent on uncertain events to justify granting their motion." Id. at *11. Judge Posner suggested that insurers might be better off either defending the insured under a reservation of rights, or simply relying on their declaratory judgment action to vindicate their rights. Judge Hamilton wrote a concurring opinion concluding that the insurers lacked the type of interest that would justify intervention because their rights were contingent on whether their coverage decision was correct. So what is an insurer faced with this quandary to do? Defend under a reservation of rights and incur substantial class action defense costs until the coverage issue is resolved in a declaratory judgment action (if the court will decide that before the underlying case is resolved)? Move to intervene early in the underlying action to protect against a collusive settlement? Or play the odds that the coverage decision will ultimately be upheld? Not an easy call to make. But intervening later in the case is unlikely to succeed, at least in the Seventh Circuit. L'OREAL USA: CA Affirms Class Cert. Denial in Privacy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne Harwood Egerton of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three in the Order dated July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/KE5REPfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the denial of class certification in the case, ALLEN ADJAMIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B257403. The Appeals court said Adjamian has shown no prejudicial error, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that individual issues predominated on the question of liability. Adjamian, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc., owner and operator of Kiehl's Since 1851 retail stores. Adjamian alleged Kiehl's store employees requested personal identification information (PII) from customers in connection with credit card transactions in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971. On appeal, Adjamian contended (1) the trial court erroneously construed Civil Code section 1747.08, subdivision (a)(2) and denied class certification based on its erroneous construction of the statute, and (2) he presented sufficient evidence of a policy or practice by Kiehl's of violating the statute. Plaintiff is represented by Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. -- jason@wukolaw.com -- Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. -- dimitri@wukolaw.com -- WUCETICH & KOROVILAS Defendant is represented by Dennis S. Ellis, Esq. -- dennisellis@paulhastings.com -- Katherine F. Murray, Esq. -- katherinemurray@paulhastings.com -- Nicholas J. Begakis, Esq. -- nickbegakis@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP LAHEY HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Ethan Hartley and Jennie oemig, writing for Wicked Local, reported that exhausted nurses who work at Lahey Health's Beverly Hospital and Addison Gilbert Hospital in Gloucester are sounding the alarm and taking action to address potentially unsafe patient care conditions at their facilities. A press release from the Massachusetts Nurses Association states that, between January and May, the Department of Public Health reported more than 50 instances of mandatory overtime at the two facilities, more than any hospital in the Commonwealth. According to the release, the mandatory overtime is in direct violation of a 2012 state law that prohibits the dangerous practice as an alternative to providing safe RN staffing. The release goes on to state that each of the official reports includes a rationale provided by the employer for its use of forced overtime. In each of these cases, the rationale provided by Lahey management is in direct violation of the law. The nurses are going public with their concerns as the use of mandatory overtime has increased steadily at both facilities. Dan Marra, a hospital spokesperson, said the number one priority of Beverly Hospital and Addison Gilbert Hospital is the safety and well-being of patients and colleagues. "Beverly and Addison Gilbert Hospitals take their legal obligations seriously and it is the Hospitals' position that they are in compliance with the mandatory overtime law," he said. "We remain committed to and value our partnership with our Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) colleagues and will continue to collaborate with them on staffing and other concerns raised." The MNA filed a class action grievance with hospital management over this issue on May 8. That grievance has been rejected by hospital management, which denies any wrongdoing and refuses to change its practices. As a result, the nurses and MNA plan to submit the issue to arbitration in the hopes of changing management's behavior and improving patient safety. The MNA release stated that nurses at both facilities recently completed an internal audit. The audit revealed that, in just three and a half months (Jan. 25 through May 2), RNs had filed 54 forms documenting the illegal use of mandatory overtime. That equates to the hospital violating the law -- and staffing its units inappropriately as a result -- once every 1.8 days. "Fifty-four incidents of violating the state's mandatory overtime law in a mere 98 days is terrifying," said Jeanine Burns, RN and chairperson of the MNA bargaining unit at Addison Gilbert Hospital. Burns said mandating a nurse to work overtime is indicative of management consistently understaffing the hospitals; it also means exhausted nurses who have literally been awake for too many hours in a row are delivering patient care. "But what is even more worrisome is that we know there were many, many more instances of mandatory overtime that nurses never reported over the same time period," Burns said. LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Removed "Carzell" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Marquetta Carzell, Luella Carter, and Gladys Chege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Life of the South Insurance Company and Life of the South Insurance Company, Case No. 2015cv261693, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02535-WSD to the proceeding. The class suit arises out of the alleged breach of insurance contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC Suite 480, 1900 The Exchange, SE Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com mattklase@bellsouth.net - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP Suite 808, 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Bunnen Feinberg, Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203-2602 Telephone: (205) 254-1858 E-mail: afeinberg@maynardcooper.com LUXE VALET: Faces "Payton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Payton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luxe Valet, Inc. and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC588462 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all minimum, regular and overtime wages due in violation of the California Labor Law. Luxe Valet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is in the business of providing valet services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Pending ------------------------------------------------------ MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 is pending. On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On March 16, 2015, a second amended complaint in this same action was filed against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, and a stockholder of the Company on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and March 12, 2015. The second amended complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a stockholder. The action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, including all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, (iv) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's former and now-former officers, (v) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. The action, Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797, is pending in the Northern District of California. A motion to consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14- cv-1160 is also pending. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. This is primarily because these matters involve complex legal and factual issues subject to uncertainty. There can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved in a manner that is not adverse to the Company. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Scout Sues Over Minimum Wage Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Calcaterra, writing for HardballTalk, reported that Major League Baseball is being sued for underpaying employees in violation of federal labor laws and for colluding in order to keep salaries low and to limit job opportunities. In the past it was major league players, but they're now well-paid and normally not colluded against. In the past couple of years we've seen multiple lawsuits filed by minor leaguers and stadium employees over their being forced to work for low wages and no overtime. Now, via Nathan Grow at FanGraphs, is word that a former scout has sued for making less than minimum wage, not getting overtime despite working far more than 40 hours a week and for clubs colluding with one another and agreeing to not compete for scouting talent in violation of the federal antitrust laws. You can read the entire complaint here. It's a class action filed by Jordan Wykoff. One of his attorneys is Garrett Broshuis, the same guy representing the minor leaguers in their labor law case. Grow has a good and thorough analysis of the complaint, including some talk about how baseball's antitrust exemption is narrow, and is even more narrowly construed by New York courts, where this case is filed, than California courts where the minor league case and some other high-profile cases involving the antitrust exemption have been filed and, ultimately, lost. MF GLOBAL: Former Execs Ink $64.5MM Tentative Deal with Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCoy, writing for USA Today, reported that former MF Global Holdings chief executive Jon Corzine and other ex-officials who worked with him have reached a $64.5 million tentative settlement with investors who sued them over the failed brokerage's 2011 bankruptcy implosion. Disclosed by a filing in Manhattan federal court, the agreement in the class-action lawsuit would close one of the last major lawsuits involving claims brought by investors of the now-defunct brokerage that was based in New York City. The collapse, Wall Street's largest since the 2008 failure of Lehman Bros., was triggered in part by $6 billion in badly-timed investments on debt of Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and other European nations. The investments were part of a strategy in which Corzine, a former U.S. senator, New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs chief executive, planned to transform MF Global into an investment bank. But as the European economy weakened, MF Global was hit by margin calls and credit downgrades by rating agencies concerned about the brokerage's increasing debts. MF Global officials used more than $1.6 billion in customer funds to cover liquidity shortfalls in a failed attempt to head off the bankruptcy filing that ultimately came in October 2011. Combined with $74.9 million in approved settlements with several underwriting defendants in another case and a proposed $65 million settlement with auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers in a third, the tentative settlement would raise the investors' recovery to $204.4 million. The new settlement, like the PwC agreement, requires federal court approval. The $204.4 million combined total represents 18% of the amount that lead plaintiffs the Virginia retirement system and the Canadian province of Alberta estimated as the maximum damages that could be reasonably recovered. "These are excellent recoveries in the face of the risks plaintiffs faced and the inability of MF Global to contribute to any settlement given its bankruptcy," attorneys for the group wrote in memorandum of law filed in federal court. Separately, thousands of former MF Global customers have recovered $6.7 billion, the amount court trustee James Giddens said they were owed by the failed brokerage. MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over Xbox Console Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SETH BAKER; MATTHEW DANZIG; JAMES JARRETT; NATHAN MARLOW; MARK RISK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 12-35946 (9th Cir.), Plaintiffs appeal from the stipulated dismissal with prejudice of their lawsuit and from the order striking their class allegations. The case stemmed from an alleged design defect in the Xbox console that gouges game discs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Xbox optical disc drive was unable to withstand even the smallest of vibrations, and that during normal game playing conditions discs spin out of control and crash into internal console components, resulting in scratched discs that were rendered permanently unplayable. In striking the class allegations, the district court deferred to an earlier class certification denial order involving a similar putative class -- In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litig., No. C07-1121, 2009 WL 10219350 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009). In that case, Judge Coughenour denied class certification on the basis that individual issues of fact and law predominated over common issues of fact and law. Judge Coughenour relied heavily on the reasoning from another district court decision, Gable v. LandRover N. Am., Inc., No. CV07-0376, 2008 WL 4441960 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), rev'd, Wolin, 617 F.3d at 1176. Plaintiffs initially petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the district court approved the stipulation. On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that (1) whether the Xbox was defectively designed and (2) whether such design defect breached an express or an implied warranty were both issues capable of common proof. Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in the Opinion dated July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/bZZtmFfrom Leagle.com, reversed the district court's decision striking the class allegatons from the complaint and remanded the action for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit said the district court misapplied the law as established in Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2010), constituting an abuse of discretion. The Ninth Circuit reversed the Gable decision ten months after dismissal of Scratched Disc Litigation. Paintiffs are represented by Benjamin Gould, Esq. Mark A. Griffin, Esq. -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq. -- awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, and Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq. Brad J. Moore, Esq. STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO 413 8th St Hoquiam, WA 98550 Tel: (206)965-9877 - and - Robert L. Esensten, Esq. WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP 5567 Reseda Blvd # 330 Tarzana, CA 91356 Tel: (818)705-6800 Defendant is represented by Stephen M. Rummage, Esq. -- steverummage@dwt.com -- Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- John Goldmark, Esq. -- johngoldmark@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP MV TRANSPORATION: "Diabate" Suit Wins Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Marion Diabate sought to be the lead plaintiff in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). She alleged that her former employer, MV Transportation, Inc. (MV), a company providing paratransit services, failed to pay required wages and overtime for certain pre- and post-shift activities and for work performed during periods of time designated as uncompensated meal breaks. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Opinion dated July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6W4s1Nfrom Leagle.com, granted in part the motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action and denied motion for class certification because Diabate failed to establish predominance. The case is captioned, MARION DIABATE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-857 (E.D. Pa.). Marion Diabate is represented by: Amy Galer, Esq. Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq. BRODIE & RUBINSKY 121 S Broad St #800 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215)925-1470 MV Transportation is represented by Robert William Pritchard, Esq. -- rpritchard@littler.com -- Sarah Bryan Fask, Esq. -- sfask@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON MY TRADE: "Bourhis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Julien Bourhis, and other similarly situated individuals v. My Trade LLC d/b/a NOD d/b/a Jaavan d/b/a M Patio Furniture, Mohamed Hadj-Merabet, and Sebbah Y. Hadj-Merabet a/k/a Yamina Sebbah, Case No. 1:15-cv-22674 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of selling furniture throughout Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Netali Peles, Esq. EXECUTIVE LAW PRACTICE 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 913 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 253-1173 E-mail: netali@elpglobal.com - and - Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. ("Nationstar" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSM) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 27, 2014 and May 4, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors that purchased during the Class Period have until August 1, 2015, to file a motion seeking appointment as a lead plaintiff in the class action. Nationstar generates revenues primarily through its loan servicing business. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company misled investors into believing that Nationstar was improving its profitability as a result of increased servicing revenue on its expanding loan portfolio. Unbeknownst to investors, Nationstar allegedly engaged in unethical and allegedly illegal behavior in connection with servicing the loan portfolio. The complaint alleges Nationstar had been overcharging borrowers and illegally enhancing its profits through illicit practices, such as charging for repeated, unnecessary inspections, which resulted in additional late payment fees, and pressuring mortgagors to carry out expensive modifications and refinances on their mortgages. On May 5, 2015, Nationstar issued disappointing first quarter 2015 financial results in part related to enforcement actions by government regulators to limit the Company's allegedly unethical and/or illegal business practices. The Company reported a net loss of $48.3 million, on revenues that had fallen 15% year-over-year. On this news, shares of Nationstar fell by over $6.60 to close at $19.51 per share on May 5, 2015. If you purchased shares of Nationstar during the class period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll- Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Malakha" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Morris Malakha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01562 -DMS- MDD (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne A. Sinnett, Esq. SINNETT LAW, APC. 3919 30th St. San Diego, CA 92104 Telephone: (619) 752-0703 Facsimile: (619) 330-2120 E-mail: ws@sinlegal.com NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Children Overstaying in Foster Care ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vivian Yee, writing for The New York Times, reported that Elisa, 16, has been in foster care for more than two-thirds of her life, moving through so many foster homes that she has lost track of them all -- including four in the past two years. She was sexually abused in one, punched by her foster mother in another and hospitalized for depression, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder after several more. She has been on the verge of adoption twice, only to see it fall through each time. Thierry, who is 3, has been in foster care for more than half his life, ever since his mother took out an order of protection against his father, who had choked her and threatened to kill her. But 21 months after New York City child welfare workers took him from his home while his mother was at work, the courts have yet to determine whether there was any cause to separate them. After four years in the foster care system, Alexandria, 12, had already been shuffled between eight foster homes. Her foster parents for the past four years volunteered to adopt her, but the city did not legally free her for adoption in time, leaving her in limbo. Running through these cases, according to a federal class-action lawsuit being filed against the child welfare agencies of New York City and New York State, is a common thread of delay, mismanagement and incompetence that keeps children in an often harmful foster care system for months or years longer than necessary. The lawsuit alleges that the city's Administration for Children's Services fails to provide the services, planning and caseworker training to help children find permanent families before they suffer irreparable harm -- all part of a lack of urgency, child welfare advocates say, that permeates the system. "Foster care is supposed to be a temporary system," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, a veteran child welfare litigator who has filed class-action lawsuits aimed at reforming foster care systems around the country, and who leads a group filing the new lawsuit. "Children are not supposed to grow up thinking that the state is its parent; they should be raised by families. What pervades the New York City system, which I haven't seen anyplace else, is that there is no sense of urgency whatsoever. And there's no accountability." The lawsuit is also being filed by the office of the city's public advocate, Letitia James, and lawyers from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. According to the suit, in 2013 city children in foster care spent more than twice as much time in the system as children in the rest of the country; New York City was among the slowest jurisdictions in reuniting foster care children with their parents; and it took longer for foster children to be adopted in the city than in the rest of the state and in every other state. These delays have persisted even as the city's foster care population has fallen to around 11,100, less than a third of the total in 1999. The shortcomings have been well documented, with similar statistics appearing in the annual Mayor's Management Report, federal audits and independent reports in recent years. Ms. Lowry oversaw a report in 2009 that called attention to the system's problems and prompted the commissioner of the children's services agency at the time, John B. Mattingly, to make several changes aimed at reducing the time children spent in state custody. But Ms. Lowry said little or no progress had been made since then. In an interview, Gladys Carrion, the current commissioner of the agency, said the foster care system had taken "substantial strides" toward reform. The de Blasio administration has increased the department's budget by $100 million over the past two years, she said, allowing her to hire hundreds of additional workers, introduce new services for parents based on the science of childhood development, and better assess the needs of children placed in foster care. "No one can dispute the fact that I am an advocate, that I've been a reformer, that I took this job with instructions from the mayor to improve our system," Ms. Carrion said. "We are working very, very hard." The administration has already taken steps the lawsuit calls for, she said, including establishing a training institute for foster care caseworkers and reducing their caseloads to a maximum of 12 children. It is also smoothing out bureaucratic bottlenecks that an internal analysis found were contributing to delays; that is speeding up the processing of birth certificates and adoption subsidy applications. Ms. Carrion's "heart is in the right place, but there are longstanding structural deficiencies that the city has made no meaningful progress toward addressing in the last 18 months," said Ms. James, the public advocate, who issued a report on outlining many of the problems mentioned in the lawsuit. "The foster care system is broken, plain and simple, and we desperately need to fix it," she said. Striking as the statistics are, some child welfare advocates questioned whether they were skewed because New York, unlike most other states, allows children to stay in foster care until age 21, and because even when children are released back to their parents for trial periods, they remain on the system's books until they are permanently discharged. Ms. Lowry, however, said the data was already calculated to take these differences into account. But everyone agrees that the longer children linger in foster care, the more disastrous it is for their futures. Developmental and learning disabilities hold them back in school. Mental health problems creep in. It becomes harder for them to form relationships with adults, making them harder to adopt. Psychological harm is often compounded by physical or sexual abuse: In 2013, the lawsuit says, New York had more instances of substantiated maltreatment of children in foster care than all but two other states or territories. New York City outsources the day-to-day care of foster children to 29 nonprofit agencies that oversee placements and services. But the lawsuit criticizes the Children's Services Administration, saying it failed to supervise the agencies properly. Taken together, the plaintiffs argue, the system's problems violate foster children's constitutional rights as well as several state and federal laws that set timelines for steps in the process of placing children in foster care. There is a consensus that money and staffing are in short supply, meaning that caseworkers have been responsible for many more children than they should be, children often have several different caseworkers and the courtrooms of Family Court, where the cases are heard, are chronically clogged. But delays are embedded in every step, children's advocates say. The system is supposed to prioritize returning children to their parents, yet agencies often fail to provide the right services, like addiction treatment or parenting classes, that parents need before their children can return. Deciding whether a child's removal from a parent's care was warranted often takes 10 months or more for judges in Family Court, where advocates say judges start late, caseworkers show up unprepared or without paperwork, and monthslong adjournments are routine. And though federal law requires the adoption process to begin after children have been unable to return to their birth parents for 15 of the preceding 22 months, the city often fails to start the process or to seek adoptive parents until after the child is legally freed for adoption, leaving children in limbo even longer. Ms. Carrion said the agency was already striving to plan for adoptions earlier in the process. "Everyone talks about how we should work with a child's sense of time and have a sense of urgency for getting kids home, and that's just not the way it works," said Prof. Christine Gottlieb, co- director of the Family Defense Clinic at the New York University School of Law, who represents parents. "Everybody says that if kids can go home safely, they should go home, but we just don't see it. They simply don't hold caseworkers accountable for speeding things up." Professor Gottlieb and other longtime advocates for parents praised the suit for its potential to draw attention to the system's problems, but cautioned that it could put pressure on city officials to improve statistics by having more children adopted rather than by helping parents regain custody of their children or never lose it in the first place. She and Lauren Shapiro, the director of the family defense practice at Brooklyn Defender Services, said the administration already had an overly punitive culture that focused on holding parents to certain standards instead of helping them be better parents. But Ms. Shapiro called the lawsuit shortsighted, saying it could force the administration to focus on complying with a legal settlement instead of continuing to collaborate with advocates on improvements. "I have a question about whether this is a really good use of resources in terms of how to address the problems, because we have been successful in working with them," Ms. Shapiro said. "We don't have time to file lawsuits -- we're representing the clients -- but we're also the ones who are seeing what's happening on a day- to-day basis." NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Banda" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Basya Banda, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv- 04157 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com NRG ENERGY: Removed "Wilens" Suit to Central District California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Wilens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. NRG Energy Inc., NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02015-00793961 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-01128 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Wilens PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Asfour, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. is currently in the discovery phase of the case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company under California's private attorney general act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. PATRIOT LOGISTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas McLaughlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Patriot Logistic Services LLC and OceanAir, Inc., Case No. SUCV2015-02134 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing freight delivery services throughout Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com PD LONG: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Servius, Erver Michel, and Joseph Remy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PD Long Island Hotel Associates, LLC, Dow Pre II LLC, Murray Lee Dow II, Mark Rosinsky, Charles Anderson, Stephen R. Griffin, Reed E. Dow, Robert Levy, and Lynn Decastro, Case No. 604593/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed at the Defendants' hotel and catering venues located in New York. The Defendants own and operate hotels and catering venues in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement in COI Cases Awaits Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, that the Settlement Agreement in the Cost of Insurance Cases remains subject to the approval of court. The Phoenix Companies, Inc. ("Phoenix") previously announced in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015 (the " May 1, 2015 Phoenix Form 8-K") that Phoenix Life Insurance Company and PHL Variable Insurance Company, wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries of Phoenix (together, the "Companies"), reached an agreement (the "Settlement") as of April 30, 2015 with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve two previously disclosed class actions (the "Class Actions") against the Companies relating to certain cost of insurance ("COI") rate adjustments made in 2010 and 2011 with respect to certain policies issued by the Companies. On May 29, 2015, the Companies executed an agreement with the Plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"), which memorializes and formalizes the terms of the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Settlement Agreement remains subject to the approval of such court. PIGGLY WIGGLY: Removed "Johnson" Suit to S.C. District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Bill T. Johnson, Dale Miller, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Piggly Wiggly of Sumter Inc., Piggly Wiggly Wheaton St Inc., and Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company Inc., Case No. 2015-CP-14-305, was removed from the Clarendon County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02805-DCN to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Stokes Benson, Esq. Stephen Lewis Goldfinch Jr., Esq. GOLDFINCH WINSLOW 11019 Tournament Boulevard, Suite 202 Murrells Inlet, SC 29576 Telephone: (843) 357-9301 Facsimile: (843) 357-9303 E-mail: jessica@goldfinchwinslow.com stephen@goldfinchwinslow.com The Defendant is represented by: Andreas Neal Satterfield Jr., Esq. Donald Christopher Lauderdale, Esq. William Robert Gignilliat IV, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 232-7000 Facsimile: (864) 235-1381 E-mail: sattera@jacksonlewis.com lauderdc@jacksonlewis.com rob.gignilliat@jacksonlewis.com PLAINS ALL: Keller and Lieff File Suit Over Refugio Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, which represented those affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, have filed a class action lawsuit against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (NYSE:PAA) and Plains Pipeline, L.P., stemming from the Refugio State Beach oil spill in Santa Barbara. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of fishers, fish buyers, and other affected businesses, alleges the Texas-based companies negligently operated the 10-mile-long, 24-inch-wide oil pipeline, Line 901, causing a rupture that discharged over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto beaches and into the Pacific Ocean, creating a slick that stretched for miles, contaminating several State Marine Conservation Areas along the way, and forcing the closure of beaches, fishing grounds, and shellfish operations. "In Santa Barbara, those environmental impacts translate to profound economic impacts. In the short term, the oil from Defendants' ruptured pipeline closed fishing grounds and shellfish areas, and caused many canceled reservations from tourists who otherwise would be spending their money on hotels, restaurants, kayaking or surf trips, and fishing charters," the complaint says. "Santa Barbara values and relies on clean beaches and clean oceans," said Matthew Preusch, an attorney in Keller Rohrback's Santa Barbara office. "This spill threatens that." The complaint was filed on behalf of Keith Andrews, Tiffani Andrews, Sarah Rathbone, Josh Chancer, Joseph Viens, Cort Pierson, and Weihai Zhueng. Keith and Tiffani Andrews fish for a variety of species, but their primary source of income is trawling for sea cucumbers in the waters off of Refugio State Beach. The Andrews fish for sea cucumbers almost exclusively in the waters that were closed because of the oil spill. That now tainted area is the best habitat for sea cucumbers. Sarah Rathbone is the owner and sole member of Community Seafood LLC. Community Seafood is a "boat to table" business: it buys fresh fish from local fishermen and delivers it directly to consumers, who purchase weekly or bi-weekly "shares." The week following that spill, Ms. Rathbone did not deliver any shares to her customers due to concerns over oil contamination. Those roughly 350 cancelled shares led to lost revenue of over $6,500 for Community Seafood and Ms. Rathbone. Josh Chancer is a history teacher at Pacifica High School in Oxnard. In order to augment his public school salary, Mr. Chancer is a commercial fisherman during the summer months. For Mr. Chancer, the timing and location of Plains' oil spill could not have been worse: it happened in precisely the waters he routinely fishes at precisely the time he routinely fishes. Joseph Viens owns several ATMs at state parks and beaches along the Gaviota Coast. He makes money from these ATMs by charging people a small service fee to withdraw cash. When Plains spilled oil from its pipeline at Refugio State Beach, Mr. Viens's business ground to a halt. Cort Pierson is a fisherman who works on a variety of fishing boats that sail from Santa Barbara, most recently as an urchin diver. The oil spill closed one of the most productive sea urchin fishing grounds in the entire region, and the area in which, but for the oil spill, Mr. Pierson would have been fishing for weeks. Weihai Zhueng purchases sea cucumbers every day from several different fishing boats during the sea cucumber season in Santa Barbara. As a result of the oil spill and the resulting fishing grounds closure, Mr. Zhueng has found there are fewer sea cucumbers for him to buy, and Mr. Zhueng's past buyers and potential buyers are already asking Mr. Zhueng about the quality and safety of sea cucumbers caught here. "The purpose of this lawsuit is to repair the damage done to local fisherman and businesses, and to hold Plains accountable for all the harm it has wrought on the Santa Barbara community," said Robert Nelson, a partner in LCHB's San Francisco office. Plains is no stranger to oil spills. The company has accumulated 175 safety and maintenance infractions since 2006. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shows Plains' rate of incidents per mile of pipe is more than three times the national average. "In short, Plains has an ugly tradition of operating pipelines that fail. The communities through which it transports oil suffer the consequences," the complaint alleges. If you would like to learn more about the complaint, please contact attorneys Matthew Preusch or Daniel Mensher at (800) 776- 6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com. A copy of the complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com. Keller Rohrback represented fishermen, landowners, and businesses located in Prince William Sound in their action against Exxon to recover damages caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. A federal jury awarded a $5 billion judgment in favor of Keller Rohrback clients. Additional claims against the pipeline owner were settled for $98 million. Keller Rohrback has also handled environmental litigation involving home heating oil, contaminated drinking water, contaminated sediments, landfill leachate, metal smelting and finishing wastes, tank farms, chemical plants, gas stations, and major manufacturing concerns. Keller Rohrback, with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions throughout the country. The firm's Complex Litigation Group is proud to offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a sixty-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. It is among the largest law firms in the United States that only represent plaintiffs. Since its founding in 1972, Lieff Cabraser has litigated and resolved hundreds of class action lawsuits and thousands of individual cases. The two firms previously filed cases related to the spill on behalf of Stace Cheverez and affected fisherman, and Mark Hicks, the owner of local tour company Captain Jack's. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Gudelsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Gudelsky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04164 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Mouzon, Sarah Coe, Jan Steich, Patricia Bennett, Rosalie Tecktiel, Alice Largen, Lorrie Hurst, Rachel Dondero, Michele Uram, Kris Steinbauer, Juanita Humbertson, Al Oliveria, Nancy Moore, and Stanley Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radiancy Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01142 (D.D.C., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers of the no!no!(TM) Hair removal device, that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as capable of permanent or "long term" hair removal by "suppressing" hair growth. The product at issue is a device containing a heated wire that merely singes the hair off of a user's body and not the hair follicle or suppresses the hair's ability to regrow. Radiancy Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters and principal place of business in Orangeburg, New York. Radiancy is a leading developer and manufacturer of home-use and professional aesthetic and dermatological devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. Stephanie Berger, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com sberger@hausfeldllp.com - and - Aaron M. Levine, Esq. Brandon J. Levine, Esq. AARON LEVINE & ASSOCIATES 1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202)833-8040 Facsimile: (202)833-8046 E-mail: aaronlevinelaw@gmail.com - and - Patrick A. Malone, Esq. PATRICK MALONE & ASSOCIATES 1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202)742-1500 Facsimile: (202)742-1515 E-mail: pmalone@patickmalonelaw.com SANFORD MEDICAL: Former Patient Files Suit Over ER Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- Emily Welker, writing for Inforium, reported that a former patient in the Sanford Medical Center emergency room is suing the hospital system for what he alleges are gross overcharges leveled on him and all other uninsured patients treated in Sanford's ERs, saying the hospital charges higher rates for people who don't carry health insurance. According to a lawsuit filed in Cass County District Court, Dustin Limberg of Fargo went on Jan. 22 to the Sanford ER, where he signed a contract stating he was responsible for all charges for services provided by the hospital. Those charges, his lawsuit claims, are based on Sanford's "Chargemaster" rates, a list of costs for services the hospital keeps in order to negotiate with health insurance companies and governmental entities such as Medicare for various procedures, lab work, diagnostic tests and other items the hospital provides. While those entities get to negotiate lower rates, people like Limberg don't, the lawsuit states, and the rates on the list are several times higher than what the entities pay. Limberg came out of the ER with a $2,062 bill, which he alleges was "grossly excessive, unfair, and unconscionable for the services provided." Limberg's lawsuit states the Chargemaster list isn't mentioned in the contract, and no one from the hospital gave him payment pricing information before he received care or let him look at the Chargemaster list. He also alleges he was under duress at the time he signed the contract to pay whatever the hospital charged for the ER visit. The lawsuit seeks class action status for what it estimates may be thousands of other uninsured patients who were similarly overcharged. Sanford spokesman Darren Huber said they are not aware of the lawsuit at this time. Limberg's attorney, Mike Miller of Solberg, Stewart Miller in Fargo, said his client didn't have any bigger motivation behind the lawsuit than resolving the overcharges. "It's a problem we feel should be addressed, and that's why we brought this lawsuit," he said. Miller said there are other ongoing cases with allegations similar to Limberg's that have achieved class action status in courts in New Jersey, West Virginia and California. He believed Limberg's is the first of its kind in this region. SEARS HOLDING: Worker Sues Over Debit Card Mode of Payment ---------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse news Service, reported that Kmart pays workers with debit cards to hold back wages, make money on the float, and split fees with Citibank, disgruntled employees say in a class action. Donte D. Winfrey Sr. sued Kmart aka Sears Holding Corp. in Superior Court on June 26. He claims that Kmart has paid workers for at least 4 years with debit cards from Citibank, and that it costs employees 50 cents per transaction to get their wages. Kmart employees have had to pay the fees "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of times, Winfrey says. Citibank is not a party to the complaint. Winfrey called the debit card system "fraudulent" because fees and other deductions imposed by the bank deprive employees of their full wages. In addition to the 50-cent fee per withdrawal, he and his fellow workers are subjected to limitations that prevent them from getting all their wages at once. Winfrey claims Kmart and Citibank set up the scheme so they could use employees' wages "as a 'float' for investment and financial purposes." The 21-page lawsuit never defines "float," which presumably refers to the fact that Kmart and/or the bank earn interest on the wages during the time they hold them. Winfrey claims Kmart also fails to clearly make overtime wages on pay stubs and does not fully reimburse people for travel expenses and mileage when they are given temporary assignments at other stores. A Kmart spokesman told Courthouse News the company had not been served and could not comment on the case. Winfrey seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution, disgorgement, and punitive damages for unfair business practices, failure to comply with the Private Attorneys General Act and other violations of the California Labor Code. He is represented by Michael W. Parks with Schimmel & Parks of Sherman Oaks, who did not immediately reply to a request for comment. SIGNET JEWELERS: Store-Level Employment Practices Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited continues to defend a lawsuit alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015 and Claimants' reply was due on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. SIGNET JEWELERS: Investigating Naomi Tapia Matter ------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited is investigating the underlying allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously defend its position against them, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. The deadline to opt-out of the proposed settlement was January 26, 2015 and final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015. The Company is investigating the underlying allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously defend its position against them. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion to Dismiss Heard by Court of Chancery ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant's motion to dismiss Litigation Challenging the Company's Acquisition of Zale Corporation was heard by the Court of Chancery, Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer names as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plantiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------ Morgan & Morgan announces that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased shares of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") during the period between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period") including the Company's two registered public offerings on March 27, 2014. If you purchased Solazyme securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than August 24, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, and in the Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme's construction progress, development and production capacity at its renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil. On November 5, 2014, the Company disclosed that it would "narrow [its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value products" due to continued issues generating consistent power and steam. Following this disclosure, Solazyme's stock price declined $4.35, over 58%, to close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014. Similarly, the market price of Solazyme's notes declined by $235.00 per note, over 30%, to close at $540.00 on November 7, 2014, the next session in which the Notes traded. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." SRM BEAUTY: Faces "Loh" Suit Over Corporate Funds Mismanagement --------------------------------------------------------------- Sook Yin Loh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRM Beauty Corp., et al., Case No. 706111/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 16, 2015), alleges that the majority shareholders and officers of SRM, have engaged in self-dealing, embezzlement and misappropriation of corporate funds, in that among other things, they have failed to account for large amounts of cash transactions, have refused repeated requests by Sook Yin Loh for access to and inspection of the books and records of SRM' s corporate and financial affairs, and in that the amounts stated as gross receipts is in consistent with and does not match the volume of purchases and business done. SRM Beauty Corp. owns and operates cosmetic and perfume stores with its principal place of business in the County of Queens, State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford S. Nelson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHEAL H. JOSEPH, PLLC 203 East Post Road White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 574 8330 Facsimile: (914) 358-5379 The Defendant is represented by: Lawrence Lo, Esq., 132 Greenpoint Ave. steb1 Brooklyn, NY 01122 Telephone: (718) 383-5230 SUTTER HEALTH: Removed "McCray-Key" Class Suit to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Joyce McCray-Key, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region and Sutter Solano Medical Center, Case No. 34-2015-00179352, was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01514-JAM-CKD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq. BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com - and - Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (818) 883-4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Cara Yewleh Chee, Esq. Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. GRUBE BROWN & GEIDT LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5007 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: yewlehchee@gbgllp.com tomgeidt@gbgllp.com TEIKOKU PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Lidoderm -------------------------------------------------------------- On April 22, 2015, a group of indirect purchaser plaintiffs composed of retail establishments -- Walgreen Plaintiffs -- brought a First Amended Complaint against defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Pharma USA, Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis, plc, formerly known as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc. in this multidistrict antitrust litigation relating to a settlement agreement entered into by defendants that resolved a patent dispute over the drug Lidoderm. The FAC asserted that: (i) the Lidoderm Settlement is an unreasonable restraint on trade that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) by entering into the Lidoderm Settlement, defendants conspired to expand monopoly power by intentionally forestalling the introduction of generic Lidoderm in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) defendant Endo exercised monopoly power over the relevant market by intentionally excluding competitors and charging artificially high prices for Lidoderm; and (iv) defendant Endo attempted to monopolize the relevant market by entering into the Lidoderm Settlement with the other defendants. In the motion, Defendants argued that (i) the Walgreen Plaintiffs lacked statutory standing as indirect purchasers of Lidoderm, (ii) the assignments of claims from Lidoderm wholesalers were invalid and failed for lack of Article III standing, and (iii) any valid assignments of claims should be joined with those of the group of direct purchaser plaintiffs. District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fdo7v8from Leagle.com, struck the Walgreen Plaintiffs' claims insofar as they were brought as indirect purchasers, with leave to amend and denied the remainder of defendants' motion to dismiss. The judge said the Walgreen Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims on their own behalf as indirect purchasers and have not adequately pleaded that they are entitled to injunctive relief. He added that the assignments of the right to bring antitrust claims are valid and the partial assignment of claims does not require the Court to dismiss or stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs' claims at this stage of the litigation. The case is captioned, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-MD-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Michael Purdy, Esq. -- apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Ryan James McEwan, Esq. -- rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC., Daniel C. Girard, Esq. -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, David S. Nalven, Esq. -- davidn@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Defendants are represented by Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq. -- karen.lent@skadden.com -- Sean M. Tepe, Esq. -- sean.tepe@skadden.com -- Steven C. Sunshine, Esq. -- steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Parties Signed MOU ---------------------------------------------------- Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit related to the merger with Regado Biosciences, Inc., have signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement. On May 4, 2015, Regado Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Regado), completed its business combination with Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. (Private Tobira) in accordance with the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of January 14, 2015, as amended on January 23, 2015 (the Merger Agreement) by and among Regado, Landmark Merger Sub Inc., Private Tobira, and Brent Ahrens, as the Company's stockholders' agent. On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (the "Court"), challenging the proposed stock-for-stock Merger of Regado with Tobira ("Proposed Merger"). On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger. On May 4, 2014, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to Tobira Development Inc. ("Private Tobira"). The complaints name as defendants: (i) each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally allege that the entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures related to the Merger Agreement and cover Court awarded fees. On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. As of March 31, 2015, the Company has accounted this matter as a contingency because it is unable to reasonably estimate an amount and/or a range of loss until the Company is made aware of Court fees awarded to the plaintiffs under the proposed settlement, if any, as administered under settlement law. The Company maintains D&O insurance and tail coverage with deductibles of $2.0 million and $1.5 million respectively, and expects to evaluate and/or recognize the impact, if any, in its financial statements as of June 30, 2015. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: "Dawsey" Suit Belongs to Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------- In April 2014, Daniel Dawsey was involved in an auto accident while insured by The Travelers Indemnity Company. Dawsey filed a putative class action in Pierce County Superior Court, in Washington state, alleging that Travelers failed to inform and pay its automobile policyholders for the diminished value under its Uninsured Motorist Property Damage policy coverage. Dawsey claimed that Travelers' failure to pay for the loss was a breach of the insurance contract, and that Travelers' conduct violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. Travelers removed under the Class Action Fairness Act [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), 1446, and 1443], claiming that Dawsey's claims meet CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement. Dawsey now seeks to remand the case, arguing that his proposed class action against did not meet the CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold. He claimed that he sought only limited relief on behalf of 900 class members, and that the average loss per member was only $1,460. He estimated that the compensatory damages total only $1,314,000. His total estimate was based on compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in the Order dated July 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/aEczUtfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiff's motion to remand finding that the amount in controversy met the $5 million threshold since the inclusion of attorney's fees would succeed in placing the amount in controversy in the case at over $5 million. The case is, DANIEL DAWSEY, individually and as the representative of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-05188-RBL (W.D. Wash.). Daniel Dawsey is represented by: Stephen M. Hansen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN 1703A Dock St Tacoma, WA 98402 Tel: (253)302-5955 The Travelers Indemnity Company is represented by Anna Shiran, Esq. -- anna.shiran@dentons.com -- Mark L. Hanover, Esq. -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, Marilee C. Erickson, Esq. -- merickson@rmlaw.com -- REED MCCLURE ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., continues to defend a putative employment class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. "On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California," the Company said. On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. ULTA SALON: Parties Agree to Private Mediation ---------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action lawsuit against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., have agreed to private mediation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. "On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County and was removed to the U.S. Northern District Court of California on January 8, 2014," the Company said. It seeks class action certification for claims involving payment of wages using an ATM card; allegedly failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal and rest break premiums due to Ulta's exit inspection practice. On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding with respect to the paycard-related claims. The issue in this class action is whether Ulta was required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay cards for purposes of supplemental and final pay, and whether the pay statements issued in conjunction with pay cards complied with California's Labor Code provision. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. The parties have agreed to private mediation, which is set for September 2, 2015. UNISYS CORP: Emotional Distress Claim Barred, Calif. Judge Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and request for temporary stay in the case captioned, FADI SABA, Plaintiff, v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-01310-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Fadi Saba filed suit against Unisys, his former employer, after he was terminated in 2013. He brought two causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of a fundamental public policy, arguing that Unisys terminated him (i) in retaliation for a prior lawsuit that he brought against Unisys for California Labor Code violations and (ii) for reporting Unisys's concealment of its failure to back up files for one of its clients, a government contractor that was subject to a hold order from the U.S. Department of Justice. He also stated a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), arguing that Unisys terminated him in retaliation for taking family leave on several occasions, and a claim under California law for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court of California in the Order dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/AdVVJ3from Leagle.com, granted Unisys's motion for summary judgment finding that the IIED claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, denied Saba's motion for partial summary judgment because it failed on its merits, and denied as moot Saba's request for a temporary stay. Fadi Saba is represented by: Charles Jerome Wisch, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. WISCH 425 California St # 200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415)788-1945 UNISYS Corporation is represented by Eric Meckley, Esq. -- emeckley@morganlewis.com -- Nancy Villarreal, Esq. - nvillarreal@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP UNO CAFE: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Pena Bustamante, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Uno Cafe & Billiards Inc. d/b/a Uno Cafe & Billiards/Amor Karaoke & Bar, Rosana K. Lee, Ken Lee, John Doe Park, and John Doe Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-04192-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a pool hall and karaoke bar located at 78-01 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York 11372. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S. Barton, Esq. Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: jbarton@faillacelaw.com faillace@employmentcompliance.com VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Suit Under Court Consideration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration by the District Court. The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages." "On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. "On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. "On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014. "Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us. "On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. "Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the parties have filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration by the District Court." VOLKSWAGEN: Denver Firm Wants Court to Uphold Fee Division Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that one of the three law firms appointed counsel for a class action lawsuit filed against Volkswagen and Audi over oil sludge buildup in engines and related warranties argues it is entitled to the largest share of the $15.5 million awarded in attorneys fees. In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts June 23, Denver-based law firm Irwin & Boesen PC argues that a fee division agreement signed by it, Philadelphia firm Berger & Montague PC and Los Angeles-based The McNulty Law Firm in November 2006 should control the division of any jointly awarded fees. In February, the federal court issued an order concerning an award of fees to all counsel of record. In particular, the court awarded undivided fees in the amount of $15,468,000 to the "class counsel as a whole." The order was the second such award. The first award was reversed on appeal because it had been calculated based on a "percentage of fund" basis that an appellate court found to be improper. Based on the outcome of the appeal, all fee awards made in the order were determined based on a time accounting. According to Irwin & Boesen's complaint, the $15,468,000 fee award to class counsel as a whole was the only fee award that was enhanced by a multiplier. The court determined that a multiplier of two was an "appropriate enhancement" to class counsel's pre- award lodestar of $7,734,000. Under the lodestar method, an amount is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the case times a reasonable hourly rate. Massachusetts courts are allowed to use the method. In this case, the lodestar was calculated based on an across-the- board one-third reduction of the hours submitted by class counsel and then multiplied by $500 per hour. According to court documents, the time devoted to the case by the three class counsel firms was: 14,600.13 hours by Irwin & Boesen; 4,350.40 hours by McNulty; and 4,241.10 hours by Berger & Montague. As such, Irwin & Boesen devoted 63 percent of the total time making up the lodestar, McNulty devoted 18.7 percent and Berger & Montague devoted 18.3 percent. The underlying class action against Volkswagen and Audi dates back to 2006. The plaintiffs -- represented by Irwin & Boesen, Berger & Montague, and McNulty -- accused the automakers of failing to disclose to consumers that engines in model year 1997 through 2004 Audi vehicles equipped with 1.8 liter turbo-charged engines and model year 1998 through 2004 Volkswagen Passat vehicles equipped with 1.8 liter turbo-charged engines are predisposed to the formation of harmful sludge and deposits. The class argued that the sludge and deposits led to oil starvation, causing "very serious" and expensive damage to and/or "catastrophic failure" of engines. Volkswagen and Audi eventually agreed, in a settlement approved in March 2011, to cover 100 percent of sludge-related maintenance costs for certain makes and model years if they have documentation of required oil changes. In anticipation of their eventual appointment as class counsel, the three law firms entered into a "leadership," or fee division, agreement in November 2006, according to Irwin & Boesen's complaint. The agreement provided that any division of the fees awarded would be based on a time-in basis, not an economic formula. Following the federal court's February order, defendants' counsel was notified of the fee division agreement. At that time, it was requested that Volkswagen issue separate checks to the three class counsel firms based on the agreement. Irwin & Boesen approved the request. Berger & Montague and McNulty objected to it, arguing the agreement was nullified in a series of December 2010 emails and the three firms instead should receive the following: Berger & Montague, 20 percent of any fee award; McNulty, 40 percent; and Irwin & Boesen, also 40 percent. "The emails do not expressly or implicitly nullify the Fee Division Agreement," attorneys for Irwin & Boesen wrote in the firm's nine-page complaint. "The emails instead refer to a sliding scale economic formula in which Berger was to receive a maximum of 20 percent of an anticipated percentage of fund fee award. "The consideration for this formula was Berger's agreement to then make fee payments to the non-Class Counsel Law firms under Berger's 'tent.'" Irwin & Boesen is seeking a declaration that the fee agreement is binding; that the fees awarded to class counsel as a whole are to be divided based on the agreement; that all fees awarded to class counsel as a whole be divided based on the lodestar time accounting; and that it receive 63 percent of the fees, Berger & Montague receive 18.3 percent and McNulty 18.7 percent. Judge William Young, who under a March agreement has exclusive jurisdiction over any such disputes, is handling the complaint. Irwin & Boesen has asked the court for a speedy hearing. The firm argues the denial of its "rightful and substantial" fee award has created an "undue hardship." VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel -------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ford commenced a securities class action on July 8, 2014 against VOXX International Corporation, Patrick M. Lavelle, and Charles Michael Stoehr. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought to recover losses allegedly incurred as the result of class members' purchase of VOXX's common stock. On April 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shield issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued her R&R recommending that the Court enter an order: (1) appointing the Union Funds as lead plaintiffs in this case, and (2) appointing Robbins Geller as lead counsel. District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the Memorandum & Order dated July 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wCytZMfrom Leagle.com, adopted in its entirety Judge Shield's R&R, finding it comprehensive, well-reasoned and free of clear error. The Court appointed the Union Funds as lead plaintiffs and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in the case. The Union Funds consist of: * the Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund; * IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund; and * Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund The case is captioned, BRIAN FORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VOXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, PATRICK M. LAVELLE, and CHARLES MICHAEL STOEHR, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-4183 (JS)(AYS)(E.D.N.Y). Plaintiffs are represented by Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP Defendants are represented by John A. Neuwirth, Esq. -- john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Caroline Jane Hickey, Esq. -- caroline.neuwirth@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Allows Discrimibation Suit to Begin ------------------------------------------------------------- The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over-turned a Tennessee federal district court ruling, thereby allowing plaintiffs in a gender discrimination regional class action to initiate their suit against Wal-Mart. The ruling does not certify the class, but allows the court action to begin. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC serves as counsel for the plaintiffs. "We applaud the court for allowing these hard-working women to join together to pursue their claims of pay and promotion discrimination against Wal-Mart," said Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen Milstein. Cohen Milstein is co-counsel in the case. "Wal-Mart's persistent pattern of gender discrimination can be devastating for women and their families," David Garrison of Barrett Johnston, the firm that filed the original suit in Tennessee. The complaint -- Phipps, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- seeks to end Wal-Mart's discriminatory practices for female employees and to receive punitive damages for the women in the class. Plaintiffs charge that Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees in stores throughout its Region 43, which centers in Tennessee and also includes parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. Cohen Milstein is co-counsel filed the original class action against the giant retailer. The named plaintiffs in the Region 43 case are Cheryl Phipps, of Covington, Tenn., employed by Wal-Mart for 11 years; Bobbi Millner, of Jackson, Tenn., employed by Wal-Mart for 26 years; and Shawn Gibbons, a Wal-Mart employee since 1993. The named plaintiffs seek to represent thousands of current and former women employees-with the exception of store managers and pharmacists-of Wal-Mart stores in Region 43. The class includes women who worked at Wal-Mart stores and were subject to pay and promotion discrimination at any time since Dec. 26, 1998. Phipps v. Wal-Mart is the third regional discrimination case lodged against Wal-Mart since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2011 reversed a lower court ruling on the national class action against the retailer and issued new guidelines for class actions and Title VII Civil Rights Act employment discrimination cases. In October 2011, two regional complaints were filed -- Dukes, et al. v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas. Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, Cohen Milstein, with 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo. More information can be found at www.cohenmilstein.com Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC fights on behalf of individuals and organizations on a wide range of legal matters. A substantial part of the practice is class action litigation, representing investors, consumers and employees in both state and federal court in Tennessee and across the country. These cases usually involve violations of federal securities law, the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), federal antitrust law, state consumer and antitrust law, employment discrimination and derivative litigation. For more information, visit www.barrettjohnston.com WESTJET: Quebec Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Accessibility Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos P. Martins and Andrew W. Macdonald of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reported that the Quebec Superior Court recently rejected a motion brought by WestJet seeking to have a previously certified class action dismissed on the basis that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Background In October 2013 the Quebec court certified a class action in that province for the recovery of compensatory, moral and punitive damages against WestJet. The class was composed of: persons residing in Quebec who were functionally disabled by reason of their obesity or otherwise and who were required to pay additional fees for an extra seat for an attendant and/or for a seat adapted to their condition on a WestJet flight; and all persons in Quebec who were required to pay fees for a seat on a WestJet flight when acting as an attendant for a disabled person. The backdrop to the class action was a January 2008 decision of the CTA (Decision 6-AT-A-2008) in which WestJet (along with Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz) was prohibited from charging a fare for any additional seat required by persons who were disabled by reason of their obesity. By virtue of the CTA's decision, all passengers who required additional seating to accommodate their disability, including where they were required to be accompanied by an attendant, became entitled to an extra seat at no additional cost. The CTA's decision in that case was based on the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Council of Canadians with Disabilities v Via Rail.(2) Applicable law To understand WestJet's position, the Canada Transportation Act must be considered. Section 5 of the act declares that the objectives of Canada's national transportation policy are most likely to be achieved when, among other conditions, "the transportation system is accessible without undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities". In order to achieve the national transportation policy's objectives, the act grants the CTA broad powers, including "all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court". In addition, Part V of the act grants specific powers to the CTA with regard to persons with disability. In its 2008 decision the CTA determined that additional fees charged by carriers to persons who were disabled by reason of their obesity constitute an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities under Section 172 of the act. Section 172(3) gives the CTA the power to "require the taking of appropriate corrective measures or direct that compensation be paid for any expense incurred by a person with a disability arising out of the undue obstacle, or both" where it has determined that there is an undue obstacle. In that decision the CTA did not direct that any compensation be paid, instead ordering only that certain corrective measures be implemented within 12 months of the date of the decision. Decision WestJet based its argument that the CTA had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the class action in part on the Via Rail decision. In Via Rail the Supreme Court held that Section 172 of the act: "is a clear example of a provision that reflects 'a conscious and clearly-worded decision by the legislature to use a subjective or open-ended grant of power [which] has the effect of widening the delegate's jurisdiction and therefore narrowing the ambit of judicial review of the legality of its actions'." However, as the judge noted, Via Rail was a judicial review application of a decision of the CTA. Via Rail involved an application to the CTA in which the design of a particular kind of rail carriage was alleged to constitute an undue obstacle for persons with disabilities. The CTA ruled against Via Rail, which applied for judicial review of that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. It was in that context that the Supreme Court recognised the high degree of expertise of the CTA in transportation matters and notably, relating to the impact of the design and construction of rail carriages, on the conditions of travel of persons with disabilities. Further, the judge specifically pointed to the Supreme Court's finding that Section 172 "is a jurisdiction-granting, not a jurisdiction-limiting, provision". Having reviewed the act and the powers that it confers on the CTA, the Quebec court reviewed the status of superior courts in Canada. These courts are courts of inherent jurisdiction and of original general jurisdiction. As provided in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, the superior court "hears in first instance every suit not assigned exclusively to another court by a specific provision of law". Exclusive jurisdiction may be granted to an administrative tribunal explicitly or implicitly. What must be examined is the intention of the legislature. However, as the judge noted, even where an intention to grant exclusive jurisdiction over a given matter to a tribunal can be deduced, the superior courts may retain jurisdiction over questions relating to that matter. The class action that WestJet was seeking to have dismissed sought damages for members of the class. In the court's view, the powers conferred on the CTA under Section 172 did not grant it exclusive jurisdiction over applications regarding undue obstacles for persons with disabilities in Canada's transportation system. It was noted that, with respect to Part V of the act relating to passengers with disabilities, Section 170 provides that the CTA "may make regulations"; and that Section 172(1) provides that the CTA "may, on application, inquire into a matter". The judge found that if Parliament had intended -- even implicitly -- to grant exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the transport of persons with disabilities, it would have employed a term other than 'may'. The Supreme Court's holding in Via Rail that the CTA had jurisdiction and recognising its expertise did not amount to a finding of exclusive jurisdiction. In its January 2008 decision the CTA ordered non-monetary remedies for the future and chose not to award damages to the applicants. The court found that the evidence suggested that the CTA has adopted a "global and reparative" mission for transportation in Canada and, generally speaking, appears not to award monetary damages even where it has the power to do so. The court held that this application of the law by the CTA aligns well with the goals articulated in Section 5 of the act. The judge held that the evidence suggested that the CTA's focus is on the future and improving the transportation system for all Canadians, rather than on the compensation or indemnification of any single traveller. WestJet's final argument was that allowing the class action to proceed would encroach on federal jurisdiction over aviation because it would affect its tariff. This argument was rejected, with the court finding that it was wrong to claim that WestJet's tariff would be affected if, at the end of the day, WestJet were ordered to pay damages for its past actions -- even if such an award might cause the carrier to change its tariff for the future. In all the circumstances, the court concluded that the CTA did not possess exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for damages. The class action certified in 2013 will therefore proceed. WILLIAMS CO: Another Law Firm Files Class Suit, Says Andrews ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc. ("Williams" or the "Company") seeking to challenge misconduct by the Company's board of directors in rejecting Energy Transfer Equity's recent proposal to acquire Williams for $64.00 per share. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On June 21, 2015, Williams announced that the Company rejected a $48 billion ($64.00 per share) takeover proposal from Energy Transfer Equity after several months of negotiations. In the Company's announcement, it disclosed that the proposal "undervalues Williams" even though the Company's stock was trading around $48.00 per share at the time. Energy Transfer's proposal represented a significant 32% premium to Williams' trading price. On June 22, 2015, The New York Times Dealbook revealed that Williams' board of directors had self-interested motives to not pursue a value-maximizing deal with Energy Transfer Equity. Specifically, the article disclosed that one of the reasons that Williams' board of directors rejected Energy Transfer's offer was because the proposal required the Company to abandon its highly- conflicted, previously announced acquisition of subsidiary affiliate Williams Partners L.P. On July 1, 2015, a Williams shareholder represented by another law firm filed a class action complaint challenging the conduct of Williams' board of directors in approving the Company's acquisition of Williams Partners L.P. The complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 11236. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney Advertising. WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., World Acceptance has filed a motion asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID from the CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 12, 2014, lead plaintiff Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains similar allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2014. On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Court granted the Company's consent motion for an extension of time for the Company to answer the amended complaint to until July 1, 2015. On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal, on grounds that the Court's decision involves a controlling question of law over which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In the event that this motion is disallowed, or if the Court's decision is not reversed on appeal, then the Company intends to answer the complaint, denying all liability, and to defend the action vigorously. WYETH CANADA: HRT Users Can Claim Compensation from $13MM Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ormsby, writing for The Star, reported that more than 1,000 Canadian women who claimed they were not properly warned of breast cancer risks by the manufacturers of popular menopause drugs -- made in part from estrogen extracted from the urine of pregnant mares -- can now request compensation from a $13.6-million settlement fund. Dianna Stanway, the leading claimant in a decade-long class action suit against drug manufacturer Wyeth Canada (now a division of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer), said her legal battle was about accountability, not cash. "I really wasn't in it for the money," said the 69-year-old Stanway from her home in Sechelt, B.C. "It was the point that (the menopause medications) caused cancer and people should know." Stanway, who said she is now cancer-free, alleged in 2004, when the class action was launched, that she developed breast cancer after using the menopause drug Premarin in combination with the hormone progestin for about eight years. As of June 29, class action members have one year to make a compensation claim from the $13.65-million fund central to the settlement. The number of claimants in the class action more than tripled, from about 300 to 1,100 after a Star story detailing the Stanway case was published last August. The case, filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, was set to go to trial last October after 10 years of litigation. On the eve of trial, the two sides came to a proposed settlement with the help of a mediator, who assisted with details of the recently finalized agreement. Wyeth Canada, in agreeing to the settlement, made no admission of fault. Previously, the company told the Star that its products are "safe and effective when used as directed" and they do not cause breast cancer. Of the $13.65-million compensation fund, $4,550,000 goes to class action counsel Klein Lawyers (and other law firms hired to help Klein Lawyers) based on a signed contingency fee retainer of 33.33 per cent, according to Justice Miriam Gropper's written reasons for approving the settlement. Additional funds were to be paid to cover taxes, disbursements and administrative costs, bringing the total legal bill to $5,096,00. Wyeth Canada is the maker of two popular hormone replacement therapy medications, Premarin and Premplus. The drugs are prescribed by physicians as a way to relieve menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness. In a prepared statement sent to the Star, Wyeth Canada said the company "does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing as part of this agreement." "In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the lawsuit has been dismissed without costs, and the litigation has come to an end," the statement continued. The Pfizer subsidiary also stated: "Hormone therapy medicines are an important treatment option for many women with symptoms of menopause. It is widely accepted that science cannot determine what caused or contributed to any individual woman's breast cancer except in rare circumstances where genetics play a role. Wyeth acted responsibly by conducting or supporting many studies on hormone therapy's benefits and risks, and providing accurate, science-based warnings on the Premarin and Premplus labels." Justice Gropper noted in her reasons for approving the class action settlement that the average age of the claimants was 71, that a total of 35 witnesses were expected to testify at trial and that plaintiff's lawyers estimated that there would have been more than trial exhibits. "I find (the settlement) is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class members as a whole, particularly in the light of the risks and costs inherent in (pursuing) the litigation to completion and the age of the class members," Justice Gropper wrote in her conclusion. Claimants must be able to prove to the claims administrator, Deloitte LLP, that they were prescribed and ingested Premplus or Premarin in combination with progestin between Jan. 1, 1977, and Dec. 1, 2003, and were thereafter diagnosed with breast cancer to be eligible for compensation. ********* 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 * * *