/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150804.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 154 Headlines AEROPOSTALE INC: Appeal by Individual Stockholder Pending AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ALLIANCE BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Class Action ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Judge Certifies Tenant Rights Group's Suit APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California AVANQUEST NORTH: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement BANKERS LIFE: Federal Court Decertifies Class of Insurance Agents BLUE CROSS: S.D. Cal. Won't Hear "Wickens" Lawsuit BRAVO PET: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Products Due to Salmonella BROWN PACKING: Recalls Beef Trimmings Due to E. Coli CANADA: Lost Student Loan Data Class-Action Lawsuit Expanded CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Atty of Traffic Camera Suit to Appeal Denial CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Securities Lawsuit Goes to E.D.N.C. CHIPOTLE INC: Calif. Ct. Says No Appeal After Class. Cert. Denial CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid CROWDFLOWER: Settles Worker Misclassification Suit for $585,507 CSG COMPANIES: Aussie Lawyer Mulls Class Suit in Queensland DANIEL ACKER: Sexual Abuse Class Suit Still Pending DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in Dallas Suit DES MOINES, IOWA: Hearing Set for Deal on Franchise Fee Refund ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Tajonar" Labor Suit to Remain in N.D. Cal. ENVIVIO INC: Funded Portion of Settlement Into Escrow Account ERNST & YOUNG: Arbitration Policy Enforceable, Court Rules FAIR COLLECTIONS: Must Defend Against "Martin" FCRA Lawsuit FEDEX CORP: Settles Dissident-Contractors' Suit FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces 2 Possible Data Breach Lawsuits FOOT LOCKER: Still Facing "Pereira" Class Action FOOT LOCKER: Still a Defendant in Wage and Hour Class Actions FOOT LOCKER: Still Defending Osberg Class Action FORD MOTOR: NJ Couple Sues Over Carbon Monoxide Leak FOREST LAB: Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations Period Denied FURIEX PHARMA: Court Cuts Fees for Plaintiff Counsel GENERAL MOTORS CANADA: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ex-Dealers GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL GEO GROUP: Allows Suit by Immigrant Detainees to Move Forward GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL GOLDMAN PHIPPS: Judge Grants Class Certification Bid in "Downing" GRINDR LLC: Sued Over Lack of Membership Information HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Worker Files Reimbursement, Minimum Wage Suit HEALTH NET: Naturopathic Doctors, Patients File Class Suit HONDA MOTORS: Recalls 4.5-Mil. More Cars Over Defective Airbags ILLINOIS TOLL HIGHWAY: Judge Dismisses Non-Resident Driver's Case ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Koetsch" Securities Litigation Ongoing ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Litigation Ongoing ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Gallien Class Action JIMMY JOHNS: "Watson" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Bedtime Products False Advertising JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Firms Spar Over Forex Suit Lead Role KELLBRAN CANDIES: Recalls Caramel Popcorn Products Due to Milk KROGER CO: Recalls Seasoning Products Due to Salmonella LAMI PRODUCTS: Class Suit Filed Over FLSA Violations LIFE & MORE: Recalls Fat Burner Gold Capsules Due to Sibutramine MAGMA DESIGN: Judge Rules in Insurance Coverage Dispute MAKER'S MARK: Judge Tosses Bourbon False Advertising Claims MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Remaining "Johnson" Claims MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Against Suit by Lucas and Salerno MID AMERICA APARTMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Schilling" Suit MIDWEST HEALTH: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "French" Suit MOSES LAKE: Recalls Human and Veterinary Sterile Compounded Drugs MOUNTAINS RECREATION: Appellate Court Trashed Violator's Appeal NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Salmonella NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates ADA, Florida Suit Claims NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Revives Shoppers' Class Suit NEIMAN MARCUS: Hearing Held on Bid for Catalyst Attorneys' Fees NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Filed Notice to Appeal Ruling NEIMAN MARCUS: Marney Zaslav Filed Class Action NEW YORK, NY: Says Child Welfare System Suit Counterproductive NEW YORK, NY: To Allow Visits to Grave Sites on Hart Island PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 New Trial Date for Securities Suit PANASONIC CORP: Loses Bid to Remove Judge in Discrimination Suit PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations PETROBAS: Pomerantz LLP Wins Securities Class Action PHILIP MORRIS: App. Court Ruled on "Skolnick" Smoking Class Suit QUEENSLAND: Abandon Suit Defense, Flood Victims Urge RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Judge Certifies Class in Provigil Suit RESTORATION HARDWARE: Guidance Issued on Use of Discount Coupon RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial Court Judge Erred in Transferring Suit ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued For Denying Marriage Licenses SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit to Remain in W.D. Okla. SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit STORM FINANCIAL: $34MM Deal a Win, Atty Behind Class Suit Says SUCCESS ACADEMY: Bronx Parents Intervene in Class Suit SUNBELT RENTALS: All-South Subcontractors' Suit Remanded TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL TARGET CORP: Data Breach Case May Move to Class Action Status TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Christiansen" in August TILLY'S INC: Defending Against "Rebolledo" Action TILLY'S INC: Filed Answer to "Whitten" Action TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Ortiz" Case Discuss Settlement TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay $230K to Texas Woman in Robocall Case TRACFONE: Pays $45-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Deceptive Ads TRUEBLUE INC: "Smalls" Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina TUBELITE INC: Fax Sent Not "Advertisement," Says Judge UBER: Challenges Class Suit Over Employee Certification UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Under Probe for Deceptive Practices URANERZ ENERGY: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU VIRGINIA: Solitary-Confinement Suits Head to Supreme Court WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Reinstated WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Case Over Product Ads WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court WINDSOR SURRY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cover" Suit WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Officers, Directors * Angeion Expands West Cost Class Suit Presence with Kyle Mason * Capstone Law APC Hires Class Suit Lawyer, Bevin Pike * Supreme Court to Consider Effect of Rule 68 in Class Actions ********* AEROPOSTALE INC: Appeal by Individual Stockholder Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Aeropostale, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that an appeal filed by an individual stockholder of the court order approving the settlement in a class action lawsuit is pending in the second circuit. In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and former and current senior executive officers Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named as defendants in an action amended in February 2012, City of Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on behalf of purchasers of Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011 and August 18, 2011. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and increasing inventory. A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25, 2013. Aeropostale and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement resolving the claims made in this action, without any admission of liability, for the amount of $15.0 million, all of which was funded with insurance proceeds. The settlement received final court approval on May 9, 2014. An individual stockholder filed an appeal of the May 9, 2014 court order approving the settlement, which appeal is now pending in the second circuit. AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers of AirMedia Group, Inc. AMCN, American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") from April 15, 2015 through June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AirMedia investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, AirMedia misled investors about the purported sale of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising subsidiary, AirMedia Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising"), to Shenzhen Liantronics Co. Ltd., and the valuation of the subsidiary negotiated in the deal, stating that deal was worth $500 million. On June 15, 2015, the Company issued an announcement stating that it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell a 75% equity interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund Management Co., Ltd. for $344.4 million, a significant reduction from the value the Company had claimed during the class period. When the true details entered the market, AirMedia's share price declined and 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 August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-593.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. ALLIANCE BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, that Alliance and WSFS Financial Corporation have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a class action lawsuit. Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania ("Alliance") and WSFS Financial Corporation ("WSFS") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization , dated as of March 2, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the merger of Alliance with and into WSFS, with WSFS as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Alliance (SEC File No 0-54246) and WSFS (SEC File No. 333-203572) filed a definitive proxy statement/prospectus, dated as of May 8, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the proposed Merger. As described in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, four purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the Merger were filed. These actions, Parshall v. Stonier (filed on April 20, 2015 and amended on May 8, 2015), Sloss v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015), Hewes v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015) and Rubin v. Stonier et al. (filed May 8, 2015) were all filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Subsequently, the four actions were consolidated into one action under the caption, In Re Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action Litigation (Lead Case No. 2015-3606, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania) (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit named as defendants Alliance (as nominal defendant), its directors and certain of its officers, and WSFS (collectively, the "Defendants"). The Lawsuit alleged that the members of the Alliance board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Alliance shareholders by approving the Merger for inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order to obtain benefits for Alliance directors and officers that are not equally shared by other Alliance shareholders, entering into the Merger Agreement allegedly containing preclusive deal protection terms, and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the Alliance shareholders. The Lawsuit also alleged claims against WSFS for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and challenged the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the transaction in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiffs in these actions sought injunctive relief, rescission, or rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and further relief. On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs ( the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of the Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance and WSFS have agreed to file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of Alliance the supplemental disclosures provided below in this Current Report on Form 8-K, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to release Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants from all claims related to the Merger Agreement and the proposed Merger, subject to approval of the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOU, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon the award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Alliance, its successor in interest and/or its insurer. In the event no agreement is reached among Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses, then Plaintiffs have reserved the right to apply to the court for payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of any fees and expense awarded will ultimately be determined and approved by the Court, and will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by WSFS. In the MOU, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and other documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement. The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting of shareholders of Alliance scheduled for June 18, 2015 in Havertown, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. Alliance, WSFS, and the other Defendants deny all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures previously included in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, Alliance, WSFS, and the other Defendants have agreed to settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid the costs, disruptions and distraction of further litigation. Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Lawsuit and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens and entered into the MOU solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants believe the disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under law. ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Juliano v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00219, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02635-LHK to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Stewart, Esq. STEWART AND STEWART PC 1021 Noble Street, Suite 110 Anniston, AL 36201 Telephone: (256) 237-9311 Facsimile: (256) 237-0713 E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com - and - Greg William Foster, Esq. T. Dylan Reeves, Esq. STEWART AND STEWART PC The Realty Building, Suite 300 1826 3rd Avenue North PO Box 721 (35021) Bessemer, AL 35020 Telephone: (205) 425-1166 Facsimile: (205) 425-5959 E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net dreeves@stewartandstewart.net The Defendant is represented by: David R. Boyd, Esq. COMEY & BOYD 1800 M St N.W. Ste 575 South Washington, DC 20036-5869 Telephone: (202) 822-6340 E-mail: dboyd@bsfllp.com - and - Allison M. Holt, Esq. Craig A. Hoover, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. Peter R. Bisio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th St NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com - and - Cavender C. Kimble, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 6th Avenue N, Suite 1500 PO Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 226-3437 Facsimile: (205) 488-5860 E-mail: ckimble@balch.com APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Judge Certifies Tenant Rights Group's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Josh O'Leary, writing for Press-Citizen, reported that a district court judge has certified a class action filed by a tenant's rights group against Apartments Downtown, Iowa City's largest off- campus student housing provider. Judge Chad Kepros of Iowa's Sixth Judicial District found that lease provisions used by Apartments Downtown were illegal, and he approved the certification of a class action lawsuit that had been in limbo the past five years. The decision is a major victory for the Iowa Tenants Project, an Iowa City-based group that has pursued a number of class-action and small claims cases against Iowa City-area landlords -- with Apartments Downtown and its owners, the Clark family, being its largest adversary. The group, headed by attorney Christopher Warnock, initially filed for the class-action lawsuit in December 2010 on behalf of former tenant Michael Conroy and other renters, alleging the landlord was charging illegal fees and withholding unreasonable amounts from security deposits. In an 11-page ruling, Kepros granted the tenants' request for a partial summary and declaratory judgment -- meaning the ruling is based on the existing facts in the case without it going to a trial, which had been set for November. Kepros said in the ruling that several lease provisions used by Apartments Downtown "are illegal and should not have been included in the standard lease." Warnock said that, while Apartments Downtown could file an appeal, the ruling means that thousands of former tenants who rented under the lease in question will be owed damages. Warnock said that amount, including the possibility of punitive damages against the landlord, will be determined at a later bench trial. "This is huge," Warnock said. "Basically it's the largest student landlord in Iowa City, and they've fought us tooth and nail, but they've been found guilty. All the fees they charged illegally, knowingly or unknowingly, they've got to give that back." A message left with Apartments Downtown seeking comment was not returned. Warnock said the leases challenged by the class action lawsuit were used by Apartments Downtown from 2010 through 2014, and he estimates that they covered at least 6,000 tenants in that time. Warnock said Apartments Downtown has since rewritten its lease. The class action lawsuit argued that the lease violated tenants' rights by charging an automatic carpet cleaning fee, whether the carpet was clean or not; having provisions that shifted responsibility for repair and maintenance to tenants, including in common areas of a building; and including a variety of illegal fees, penalties and other charges. The judge found in favor of the tenants on all points. On the carpet cleaning issue, for instance, Kepros wrote that Iowa law requires that a landlord "provide a tenant with a specific reason for withholding any of the rental deposit, and also requires the landlord to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the reason for withholding any of the rental deposit, with ordinary wear and tear excepted." Kepros also ruled that, unless a landlord can show that a tenant caused damage beyond ordinary wear and tear that resulted from deliberate or negligent acts, it cannot shift repair and maintenance responsibilities to a renter. "Hopefully this will be a wake-up call just for not just the Clarks, but for all landlords in Iowa City that you need to clean up your leases and treat your tenants fairly," Warnock said. Warnock said that once the court rules on the damages, a database of the names of past Apartments Downtown tenants affected by the lease in question will be collected. Those tenants will likely be contacted through mailings and other means to inform them they are entitled to money, he said. APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Stewart and Neil Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Applied Materials, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company; Aetna Health of California, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02632-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) alleges that Aetna Life breached its duty by supplanting generally accepted treatment standards in the mental health field with standards that promote the self-serving, cost-cutting preferences of Aetna Life and its corporate affiliates. Ms. Stewart, and her son Neil Stewart, who was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, are residents of San Jose, California. She is a participant in the "Applied Materials, Inc. Welfare Plan" and Neil Stewart is a beneficiary of the Stewarts' Plan. This non-grandfathered, large group plan is a self-insured healthcare policy issued by Applied Materials, Inc. in California. Aetna Life Insurance Company is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut. Aetna Health is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Walnut Creek, California. Aetna adjudicates all mental health care claims for the Plaintiffs' Plans. Applied Materials, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California. Applied Materials is the Plan Sponsor of the Aetna medical plans. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq. Andrew M. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net trozelle@kantorlaw.net akantor@kantorlaw.net AVANQUEST NORTH: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case JOHNNY BOYD, Plaintiff, v. AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-04391-WHO (N.D. Cal.) Benson Worley filed a case on August 21, 2012 as the representative of a class of consumers who bought either Fix-It Utilities Professional or System Suite PC Tune-up & Repair. Worley alleged that Avanquest fraudulently induced consumers to buy the products, which he claimed erroneously diagnose computers with a host of problems. The complaint alleged that class members paid around $35.00 for System Suite. Johnny Boyd ultimately replaced Worley in bringing the causes of action against Avanquest relating to Fix-It. Boyd alleged violations of California's unfair competition law, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Avanquest filed four motions to dismiss and two motions to strike. The court granted in part and denied in part the first of these motions to dismiss, and denied the second, third and fourth. After three years of litigation, Boyd seeks preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a suit against Avanquest. The proposed settlement agreement would provide class members with a voucher for Avanquest's AutoSave Essentials software as well as prospective relief. Judge Orrick denied the motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The parties may file a revised motion with a hearing on two weeks' notice. They should provide a redlined copy of the revisions from the original motion and agreement. If no revised motion is filed, the parties shall appear for a case management conference on September 29, 2015 at 2 p.m., having filed a joint statement on September 22, 2015. A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated July 17, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/2E7MB3from Leagle.com. Johnny Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Lasser -- samlasser@hotmail.com -- at Law Office of Samuel Lasser; Benjamin Harris Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC Avanquest North America Inc, Defendant, represented by N. Kathleen Strickland -- kathleen.strickland@rmkb.com -- Devin C. Courteau -- devin.courteau@rmkb.com -- Justin Ananda Zucker -- justin.zucker@rmkb.com -- Lael D. Andara -- lael.andara@rmkb.com -- at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley BANKERS LIFE: Federal Court Decertifies Class of Insurance Agents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert P. Brosky of BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq, said challenging the classification of workers as independent contractors continues to be a growing area of focus for plaintiffs' attorneys. However, as a recent federal case from Washington demonstrates, the fact-intensive inquiry that is the hallmark of the independent contractor inquiry is not compatible with classwide resolution -- particular post-Dukes. In Rodney v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., Case No. C14-766RSL (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2015), the plaintiffs were insurance agents who worked for and were classified by Bankers Life as independent contractors. The plaintiffs alleged that they were actually common law employees and, thus, entitled to overtime under Washington's Minimum Wage Act. The case was originally brought in Washington state court and certified as a class before Bankers successfully removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Bankers then moved to decertify the class. On decertification, the court found that the proper test of whether the plaintiffs were properly classified as independent contractors was the "economic reality" test. As we have previously written, this test looks primarily at six non-exclusive factors, none of which are dispositive. In general, this test is meant to examine whether a worker is dependent on the business to which he or she renders service or is in business for himself. Plaintiffs presented largely undisputed evidence of Bankers' alleged control over the agents' business, which they argued allowed the economic-dependence test to be resolved through common evidence. This included the fact that the agents invested little in their agencies, were not required to have experience prior to becoming agents, were "career" agents with Bankers and were a critical part of Bankers' business model, and that Bankers dictated agent work hours, sales methods, and schedules. In response, Bankers provided declaration testimony showing differences among the class. This included testimony from agents which showed that some agents were not required to attend weekly meetings and had control over their schedules, and that differing managerial styles of the various Bankers district managers led to different working experiences among the agents. After examining the evidence, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the predominance and superiority requirements for class treatment under Fed. Rule 23. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs presented common issues and common evidence suggesting a common answer as to several factors of the economic-dependence test. However, the court astutely recognized that individual experiences will differ even if they are all under completely uniform policies. This fact, combined with Bankers' evidence of varying experiences among agents, compelled the court to conclude that the determination of agent status would require an individualized inquiry into each agent's employment experience. Thus, individualized fact questions predominated over common ones and the class was decertified. Bottom Line Determining whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors often requires a fact-intensive analysis that cannot be properly resolved on a classwide basis. BLUE CROSS: S.D. Cal. Won't Hear "Wickens" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of California remanded the case of STEVE WICKENS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross of California, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross; Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendants, CASE NO. 15CV834-GPC (JMA) (S.D. Cal.) On February 4, 2015, Anthem, Inc. announced that cyber hackers had gained unauthorized access to its information technology system exposing the name, personal information, birthday, Social Security number, health care ID number, income data, employment data, street address, email address, and other personal details of about 80 million current and former customers and employees. Steve Wickens filed a class action complaint against Blue Cross of California Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company in San Diego Superior Court for state law causes of action based on defendants' failure to secure and safeguard plaintiff's personal identifying information. The class action complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Records Act, violation of the California unfair competition laws, negligence, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to the present court under the Class Action Fairness Act, (CAFA). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On May 7, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay, or in the alternative, for an extension of time to respond pending ruling on transfer motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to stay as moot. On June 19, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint changing the term "residents" to "citizens" in the class description. The court set an order to show cause hearing why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Curiel remanded the case to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated July 14, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/eChcmjfrom Leagle.com. Steve Wickens, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Allen Klitzke Blue Cross of California, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Maddigan -- michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP BRAVO PET: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Products Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------------- Bravo Pet Foods of Manchester, CT is recalling select lots of Bravo Chicken pet foods for dogs and cats due to concerns of the possible presence of Salmonella. The recall was initiated after routine testing by the New York State Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of Salmonella spp. Poly A contamination. All products tested negative by a third party independent laboratory prior to release for distribution to consumers. No additional products are affected by this recall. The company has received no reports to date of illness in either people or animals associated with these products. Salmonella can cause serious illness or fatal infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal cramping and diarrhea. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Always use proper caution when handling raw foods. The following product is being voluntarily recalled because of the possible presence of Salmonella. Product Item # Size Best Used by UPC ------- ------ ---- ------------ ---- Bravo Blend 21 - 102 2 lb 12-05-16 829546211028 Chicken diet for (32 oz.) dogs & cats - chub Chub 105 cases of this product were sold to distributors, retail stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers in the US. These products DID NOT test positive for Salmonella, but are also being voluntarily recalled out of an abundance of caution because they were manufactured in the same manufacturing facility on the same day as the product that tested positive. Product Item # Size Best Used by UPC ------- ------ ---- ------------ ---- Bravo Balance 21 - 401 3 lb 12-05-16 829546214012 Chicken Dinner (48 oz.) for dogs - bag Patties Bravo Balance 21 - 402 2 lb 12-05-16 829546214029 Chicken Dinner (32 oz.) for dogs - chub Chub Bravo Blend 21 - 508 5 lb 12-05-16 829546215088 Chicken diet (80 oz.) for dogs & cats - bag Patties These products were sold to distributors, retail stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers in the US. The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners who have the affected product at home should dispose of this product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle). To submit a claim, pet owners should return to the store where they bought the product. To get a refund at the store where you bought the product: Customers should return to the store where they purchased the product and submit the Bravo Recall Claim Form available on the Bravo website http://www.bravopetfoods.com/consumerrecall.htmlfor a full refund or store credit. See Bravo Product Claim Form for details. More information on the Bravo recall can also be found at www.bravopetfoods.com, or call toll free (866) 922-9222 Monday through Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm (EST). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455868.htm BROWN PACKING: Recalls Beef Trimmings Due to E. Coli ---------------------------------------------------- Brown Packing Company, a South Holland, Ill. establishment, is recalling an undetermined amount of beef (veal) trimmings that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin- producing E. coli (STEC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The raw, boneless beef (veal) trimmings were produced from Feb. 21, 2014 through July 17, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- Approx. 60-lb. boxes of "DUTCH VALLEY VEAL." Various weight generically labeled combo bins of fresh of beef veal trimmings. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 167" inside the USDA mark of inspection printed on boxes. Lot code numbers printed on product labels will range from "4000" through "4313" and "5167" through "5365." The products were shipped to distributors and retail locations in Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey and Ohio. The problem was discovered by FSIS upon receiving positive test results for E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 STEC while performing verification activities at the establishment and observing other non-compliances. Additionally, it was learned that those trimmings were potentially co-mingled with other products and portions of those products were shipped to other than cooking facilities. FSIS and the company have received no confirmed reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 STEC are potentially deadly bacteria that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 145ø F for steaks and roasts (with a three-minute rest time) and 160ø F for ground product. The only way to confirm that beef products are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Mike Jedlicka, company operations director, at (708) 849-7990. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Brian Oedzes, company vice president, at (708) 849-7990. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. CANADA: Lost Student Loan Data Class-Action Lawsuit Expanded ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Levitz, writing for The Canadian Press, reported that the Federal Court of Appeal has ordered the expansion of a class- action lawsuit brought by thousands of students whose personal loan data was lost by the federal government. And the lawyer representing the students says that decision could have far-reaching implications for other similar cases. The appeal court overturned a prior decision limiting the avenues the students had to pursue their case, on the grounds that they had failed to prove they actually suffered certain kinds of damage when the data was lost. A portable hard drive with information on 583,000 Canada Student Loans Program borrowers from 2000 to 2006 went missing in 2013 and has still not been found. But the appeal court overturned the decision, saying that in negligence and breach of confidence matters the specific details of damages don't need to be proven before a class action can go ahead. Lawyer Ted Charney called the decision pioneering because for the first time the court has laid down legal markers for certifying class-action lawsuits around privacy breaches. The students are also suing for breach of contract and warranty, and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion -- basically, invasion of privacy. The lost files include student names, social insurance numbers, and dates of birth, contact information and loan balances, as well as the personal contact information of 250 department employees. The department has said there's no evidence the data was ever used fraudulently. While the appeal court decision may not change the amount of damages the students could one day win, it does mean there are now four ways for students to potentially recover damages, Charney said. But there also other implications. "The whole area of privacy class actions and digital litigation over privacy breaches is in its infancy in Canada," he said. "This is a pioneering decision in terms of what you need to establish at certification." Among the cases that could be impacted is a lawsuit being brought by users of a medical marijuana program who had their identities exposed in a government mailing. CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. CBD Energy Limited, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00997, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01668 to the proceeding. The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased the common stock of CBD Energy pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's public offering, which commenced on June 13, 2014. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 252-1888 Facsimile: (214) 252-1889 E-mail: dean@paynemithcell.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com Defendants National Securities Corporation and Northland Securities, Inc. are represented by: Paul Richard Bessette, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 3200 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2050 Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com Movants Shan Zhengjian and Charles McKissick are represented by: Michael Charles Smith, Esq. SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH LLP 113 E. Austin St. P.O. Box 1556 Marshall, TX 75671-1556 Telephone: (903) 938-8900 E-mail: michaelsmith@siebman.com CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Atty of Traffic Camera Suit to Appeal Denial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cris Earl, writing for KCRG.com, reported that James Larew was not even in the country on July 2, when he found out the a federal judge ruled against the class action suit that he filed against the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and GATSO USA, the company that installed and operates the city's well-known automated traffic cameras. Seven days later, on his first day back on American soil, Larew spoke outside of his office near downtown Iowa City. "We're very respectful of the federal court and judicial officers can have different opinions as to the law from those of us representing litigants and, at the same time, we can respectfully disagree with the court," said Larew of Chief Judge Linda R. Reade's 45-page decision, in which Reade wrote that the camera, which use images of license plates to detect and fine drivers speeding in excess of 12 miles per hour, do not violate fundamental rights of motorists nor is the program unconstitutional. Larew argued the case on behind of listed plaintiff Gary Hughes and 11 others, which was filed on September 2, 2014, just days after the Iowa Department of Transportation said two sets of traffic cameras on Interstate 380 were not in compliance with new regulations, as the cameras were within the minimum 1,000 feet of a speed limit decrease. With the setback, what is Larew's next step in any possible class- action litigation? "The options that the clients have is whether to appeal it or not," said Larew. "My sense is that there is a fairly high likelihood they will instruct us to appeal it to the federal Circuit Court. However, there were a number of legal issues that were not raised in that lawsuit, events that have happened since the lawsuit was filed," said Larew. Larew stressed three major points that could be explored in any future actions: (1) The Iowa Department of Transportation's ordering of the removal and moving of two sets of traffic cameras on Interstate 380. On March 17, 2015, the DOT said the city must move the two sets of traffic enforcement cameras. The March 17 order focused on the sets of cameras, in both directions, on Interstate 380 north of downtown. The southbound cameras had already been cited by the DOT as not in compliance in August 2014 but the more recent directive claims the northbound cameras on I-380, at J Avenue NE, were unnecessary because they were beyond the Interstate's crash- prone S-curve through downtown. (2) Larew said the city of Cedar Rapids uses "collection processes that involve reporting ATE (automated traffic enforcement) penalties and fines to national credit reporting agencies". Larew claimed attorneys general of 32 states, including Iowa, find the practice "wrongful" in that these are not "debts in the traditional sense". As people may not be aware of the penalties, Larew argues, these fines should not go to credit reporting agencies as "they have not been adjudicated by independent judicial officers." (3) The matter of whether the hundreds of thousands of traffic citations (approximately 90,000 issued during 2014) is public record also concerns Larew. "The electronic data collected by the city to implement its ATE penalties concerns hundreds of thousands of vehicles are public records," Larew claimed in a statement. Larew said this information should be available to the public with ease of access and a "cost-effective manner." [Note: KCRG-TV9 does maintain a database of more than 442,000 tickets given by the cameras from 2010 through late August 2014] For the city, ruling reduces down to one what had been a two-front legal battle. On June 8, the City Council voted to sue the Iowa Department of Transportation to keep the traffic enforcement cameras in place. The previous week, Mayor Ron Corbett said that he favored complying with the DOT's order to turn off cameras at two I-380 locations and move the sets of two other cameras to new locations near the S-curve. Due to the current litigation between the city of Cedar Rapids and the Iowa DOT, city leaders have been hesitant to grant interview requests about the speed cameras. Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne Jerman offered this statement to KCRG-TV9: "We are very pleased with Judge Reade's ruling," wrote Jerman. "The automated traffic enforcement cameras are critical to improving the safety of our community for motorists and first responders. There has been a reduction in serious injury crashes and there have been no fatalities on the interstate since the installation of the cameras." The issues of traffic cameras raised the visibility of Cedar Rapids. Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Adam Belz, formerly of The Gazette, wrote an extensive piece in May 2015 about the city's cameras, largely with a focus on how more than 16,000 tickets issued in 2013 and 2014 went to Minnesota drivers. CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of investors of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company") that held shares between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Celladon securities during the Class Period or you held shares traceable to Celladon's initial public offering ("IPO") on January 30, 2014, you may, no later than August 31, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges that Celladon made false and misleading statements about MYDICAR, the Company's leading investigational drug for treating heart failure. Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (1) the success in the CUPID1 trial of MYDICAR was not indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trial since the CUPID1 trial was extremely small and (2) Celladon's top executives were aware of the limitations of the CUPID1 trial in predicting the success of the CUPID2 trial. As a result, Celladon executives caused Celladon securities to trade at artificially inflated prices by improperly concealing the limitations of the CUPID1 trial. On April 27, 2015, the truth about Celladon's cover-up began to be revealed when the Company announced that the trial failed to show a significant treatment effect. As a result of this news, Celladon's stock price fell 80% and closed at $2.64 per share, wiping out millions of market value and causing millions in losses for investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 31, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney Advertising. CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Securities Lawsuit Goes to E.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to transfer the case entitled In re CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION Securities Litigation, NO. 15-CV-506 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.) ChannelAdvisor Corp. is a Delaware corporation based in Morrisville, North Carolina. Defendants Scot Wingo, David Spitz, and John Baule are the executive officers, who live in and around Morrisville, North Carolina. Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class action suit against the defendants alleging that the defendants made public statements about ChannelAdvisor's revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 that were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that, ChannelAdvisor's shift in customer base away from smaller clients to larger clients posed a risk to the company's financial performance and larger clients were given a discount that results in lower revenue for the company. Defendants moved to transfer the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Judge Nathan granted the request. A copy of Judge Nathan's memorandum and order dated July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/uu9Zl6from Leagle.com. Justin Dice, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA; Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP David A. Garcia, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville -- Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP Channeladvisor Corporation, Defendants, represented by Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- Dana Moss -- dmoss@cooley.com -- George Edward Anhang -- ganhang@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP CHIPOTLE INC: Calif. Ct. Says No Appeal After Class. Cert. Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Cheng and Alexandria Witte of FordHarrison, in an article for JD Supra, said that in a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeals recently held that, unlike cases where only class allegations are asserted, California's "death knell" doctrine does not apply to cases where class certification is denied and representative claims under California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) move forward. See Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC447232 (June 30, 2015). The court's decision means the plaintiffs cannot appeal the denial of class certification until after litigation of their representative PAGA claims. Background In Munoz, a group of former nonexempt, hourly employees brought a putative class action against Chipotle, primarily claiming Chipotle failed to reimburse them and other similarly-situated employees for out-of-pocket purchases of nonslip work shoes, and failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. They also made derivative representative claims under PAGA. The plaintiffs asked the trial court to certify two subclasses: (1) an unpaid wages subclass of Chipotle nonexempt California employees for failure to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses for nonslip work shoe purchases and for unpaid minimum wages resulting from wage deductions to cover those purchases, and (2) a noncompliant wage statement subclass for Chipotle nonexempt California employees. The plaintiffs did not seek to certify their PAGA claim. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion, and the plaintiffs appealed the order under California's "death knell" doctrine. Denial of Class Certification Is Only Appealable When Individual Claims Remain In appealing the order denying class certification, the plaintiffs argued that California's "death knell" doctrine applied, rendering the order readily appealable. Unlike typical intermediate appeals, which require a court order permitting appellate review, the "death knell" doctrine permits immediate review of denials of class certification motions. The underlying premise of this doctrine is that such appeals must be permitted because otherwise the plaintiffs would have no financial incentive to pursue the case to final judgment for the sake of preserving the right to appeal denial of class certification after final adjudication of the entire case. Essentially, denial of class certification is "in legal effect a final judgment" and readily appealable, even pending litigation. Prior to Munoz, no Court of Appeal had looked at whether the "death knell" doctrine applied when the plaintiff brought both class claims and representative claims under PAGA. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals in Munoz found that even though the trial court denied certification on all class claims, the remaining representative PAGA claims precluded application of the "death knell" doctrine. The appellate court reasoned that because the plaintiffs still sought to prosecute their action under PAGA on behalf of all current and former "aggrieved" employees -- all of whom were putative class members prior to the class certification ruling -- the plaintiffs' individual claims were not the only claims left in the case and, as such, the plaintiffs still had an incentive to continue litigation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiffs' appeal as procedurally defective, although it did not rule on the merits of the appeal itself, and awarded costs to the defendant. Bottom Line for Employers The Munoz opinion essentially precludes intermediate appeals of class certification denials when PAGA claims are still in play, requiring plaintiffs to move forward with their case rather than delaying the case mid-litigation and forcing employers to spend significant time and money on appeals. CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody ("SS&B") announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the shares of CorMedix, Inc. ("CorMedix") between March 12, 2011 and June 29, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased CorMedix securities during the Class Period you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the action by September 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) CorMedix's announcements regarding its partnership discussions and imminent Phase 3 trials for its sole product, Neutrolin, were materially false and misleading; (2) clinical studies touted by CorMedix were misleading and overstated its effectiveness; (3) CorMedix overstated the cost effectiveness of Neutrolin compared to currently established medical protocols; (4) CorMedix's market claims for Neutrolin were overstated; (5) CorMedix stock achieved an unsustainable valuation by using undisclosed paid stock promoters; (6) CorMedix insiders enriched themselves at the expense of shareholders by selling stock at inflated prices; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, CorMedix's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and its stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in the class action were also breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers and directors of CorMedix. SS&B's investigation relates to allegations in news reports that CorMedix has used undisclosed, paid stock promoters to increase the value of its shares, which SS&B believes may have been a waste of corporate assets that also exposed CorMedix to potential liability. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by e-mail at CRMD@ssbny.com, by calling toll-free 1- 800-337-4983 x147, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New York and Beverly Hills. The Stull, Stull & Brody website (www.ssbny.com) has additional information about the firm. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under applicable laws and ethical rules. CROWDFLOWER: Settles Worker Misclassification Suit for $585,507 --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Johnson, writing for Staffing Industry Analysis, reported that CrowdFlower agreed to pay $585,507 to settle a class action lawsuit brought by crowdsourced workers who claim they were misclassified as independent contractors and paid less than the legal minimum wage, according to court records. A judge approved the settlement with the crowdsourcing firm on July 2 after rejecting an earlier settlement effort. Crowdsourcing involves taking large tasks or a big project and breaking them down into small tasks that online workers can complete in a few minutes without using any special skill. The most common CrowdFlower task is verifying business listings, according to the lawsuit. There are an estimated 19,992 class members in the lawsuit, according to court records. Settlements class members are to receive will range from $2.09 to $3,230.49 based on their earnings under CrowdFlower. However, Christopher Otey and Mary Greth will receive $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, for serving as named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Class members include all US-based CrowdFlower workers who performed $5 or more in tasks through Amazon Mechanical Turk's crowdsourcing site from Oct. 26, 2009, through approval of the settlement. CSG COMPANIES: Aussie Lawyer Mulls Class Suit in Queensland ----------------------------------------------------------- Hamish Broome, writing for Northern Star, reported that a Northern Rivers lawyer is considering a class action against CSG companies in the Darling Downs region of Queensland on behalf of landowners who feel they have been adversely impacted by the industry. Mullumbimby solicitor Cameron Bell said he was in discussions with several residents of the region over their grievances. "We would be looking at 15 to 20, in terms of people who would be interested in joining us," Mr Bell said. "The people I've spoken to just don't seem to be happy with the way (land access) negotiations with the companies have proceeded until now. "I have had the opportunity to look at proposed agreements put forward to these affected landowners, and they're not good agreements." "They're totally inadequate, and none of these agreements would necessarily stand up (in court), they're based on misinformation and lack of transparency." "They're just about protecting the company. "People are getting peeved off about that and they're actually wanting something done." Mr Bell successfully represented Tara resident John Jenkyn (pictured) in Chinchilla Local Court over a charge of using a carriage service (Facebook) to menace, which was struck out by the court after Mr Bell showed the allegations were without substance. On November 9 year Mr Jenkyn had posted a "rant" on a public Facebook page which became the subject of a complaint to police by gas company QGC. Mr Bell said this was a case of QGC "effectively trying to criminalise someone they're not getting along with". "My client vented his frustration on Facebook, and the next thing the police are being phoned by staff at QGC saying 'we're being threatened'." He said the courtroom win was a "significant moral victory". During his work on the case, Mr Bell said he had heard from several others who were upset with the industry. Mr Bell said he was now talking with a Brisbane lawyer experienced in class actions. If a case went ahead it might well implicate the Queensland Government because mandatory baseline testing was "overlooked" and authority given for operations to proceed, Mr Bell said. Companies had since become adept at denying any wrongdoing, which was made easier by the fact no baseline data was available. Mr Bell said while people had mobilised successfully on the Northern Rivers against CSG, the Darling Downs was a "different story" which "strikes you on another level". He said the case would need funding to collect the expert evidence needed to ground a successful action. DANIEL ACKER: Sexual Abuse Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------- Neal Wagner, writing for Shelby County Reporter, reported that a lawsuit pending against a longtime Alabaster teacher who pleaded guilty in 2012 to sexually abusing more than 20 girls during his teaching tenure likely will move forward in U.S. District Court after early 2016, according to court documents. In February, District Court Judge Virginia Hopkins issued an order extending multiple deadlines in a lawsuit brought against Daniel Acker Jr. and the Shelby County Board of Education in February 2014. As a result of the deadline extensions, the plaintiffs and the defendants have until Nov. 2 to file discovery motions, and have until Jan. 11, 2016, to file dispositive motions. Dispositive motions seek to settle or dispose portions of or all of a lawsuit. Acker was sentenced to 17 years in prison in May 2012 after he pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexually abusing underage girls during his more than 20-year teaching tenure in Alabaster. The lawsuit was brought against Acker and some past and present members of the Shelby County Board of Education by one of Acker's former students, Kristin Hurt, and six other unnamed plaintiffs. In August 2014, Hopkins denied a request by the original plaintiffs' attorney to grant the case class-action status, opening it to "Any current or former female student during the time period that Dan Acker (Jr.) worked for (the) Shelby County School Board who was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or molested by Dan Acker (Jr.), or who witnessed such conduct or who was exposed to a sexually hostile education environment through Acker's conduct." Hopkins denied the class-action request, claiming the victims sought in the class-action request did not have enough in common to join into a single lawsuit. Hopkins said Acker's victims can still file separate lawsuits "outside of the class-action format." In January 2015, attorneys for the Shelby County Board of Education and former members Lee Doebler and Steve Martin argued the defendants should be removed from the lawsuit due to the statute of limitations in the matter and because state agencies are immune from such lawsuits. According to court documents, June 1 was the deadline for more plaintiffs to be added to the lawsuit, leaving the final count at seven plaintiffs. DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in Dallas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A group of airline customers has filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Dallas accusing four major U.S. airlines of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate airfares in order to reap huge profits. The lawsuit filed July 8 says Texas-based Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) and American Airlines (NASDAQ: AAL), Atlanta's Delta Airlines (NYSE: DAL) and Chicago's United Airlines (NYSE: UAL) conspired to restrict capacity by limiting routes and the number of available seats in order to charge artificially high prices. "The defendants are so intent on raising profits that they appear to have colluded to gouge customers' pocketbooks and keep airfares sky high," says Dallas attorney Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP, who represents the plaintiffs. "Agreeing to restrict capacity to keep your profits high marks the very definition of an antitrust violation." The lawsuit describes a series of economic conditions that should have resulted in more available airline seats and lower ticket prices, including increasing public demand for airline seats and the fact that airlines paid at least $1.50 per gallon less for jet fuel in 2014 compared to 2013. Instead, the supply of seats has remained virtually flat and airline fares skyrocketed at an inflation-adjusted rate of 13 percent from 2009 to 2014, the lawsuit says. Filing follows announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice that it is investigating the airlines' tactics. Similar lawsuits on behalf of airline customers have been filed in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Mr. Burns and Burns Charest have moved to transfer and consolidate all the civil cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where lawsuit was filed. The case is Cumming, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02253. Burns Charest is a Dallas and New Orleans-based trial law firm with a national practice representing consumers and businesses. The firm represents clients in large, complex class actions; antitrust claims; oil and gas royalty disputes; environmental pollution cases; and asbestos exposure claims. DES MOINES, IOWA: Hearing Set for Deal on Franchise Fee Refund -------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that a court hearing is expected to be the final step before Des Moines utility ratepayers receive notice of how much they'll be refunded from a $40 million judgment against the city for years of collecting an illegal franchise fee. Beaverdale neighborhood resident Lisa Kragnes sued the city in 2004, alleging Des Moines was violating state law by tacking a fee on to ratepayers' MidAmerican Energy bills to raise revenue. The lawsuit was certified as a class action on behalf of all ratepayers. In 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a district court's ruling ordering the city to refund millions to residents. Kragnes' attorneys in September 2013 asked for almost $15 million in attorney's fees that would be paid from the same pool as residents' refunds. The amount represented the standard one-third amount that attorneys typically take in such lawsuits. But Polk County District Judge Joel Novak awarded only $7 million, writing that the fee award had to be fair to taxpayers as well as the attorneys. The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld Novak's ruling in January, and the Iowa Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. "We understood going into the appeal that it would be an uphill battle," Brad Schroeder, one of Kragnes' attorneys, said in a news release. "At the same time, we knew that if we let the fee award stand without any action that others might decide it isn't worth taking on City Hall if the standard for fees is different from other class cases where the defense, in this case the city, is proved to have broken the law for several years." The hearing at the Polk County Courthouse will mostly be for signing off on housekeeping items like the wording of the refund notices and claim forms that will be sent to residents, Schroeder said. Each refund notice will specify an exact amount that each ratepayer is eligible to receive, he said. It may still be months before each ratepayer receives a refund notice, Schroeder said. Administration of the notices and claims is being handled by Minneapolis-based Rust Consulting. ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Tajonar" Labor Suit to Remain in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of California denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case JOSE TAJONAR, Plaintiff, v. ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV2732-LAB (RBB) (N.D. Cal.) Jose Tajonar filed a class action complaint alleging various violations of California's labor codes, including: (1) failure to provide meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7); (2) failure to timely pay final wages (Cal. Lab. Code Section 203); and (3) failure to provide accurate and compliant wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226). Defendants, including DISH Network California Service Corporation, removed the action on November 11. Tajonar filed a motion to remand. Judge Burns denied the motion to remand. A copy of Judge Burns's order dated July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/pwynB7from Leagle.com. Jose Tajonar, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D Rutledge -- thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com -- at Law Office of Thomas D Rutledge Defendants, represented by Marlene Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson ENVIVIO INC: Funded Portion of Settlement Into Escrow Account ------------------------------------------------------------- Envivio, Inc. has funded into an escrow account its portion of the settlement in a class action lawsuit of approximately $1.0 million, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015. On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of its IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv- 05636-CW. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933- PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2012 and September 7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and the Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In November 2014, the Company and the named defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions without any admission of any wrongdoing by the Company or any of the named defendants. The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement agreement, which must be approved by the court before becoming final. The agreement required the Company to contribute approximately $1.0 million toward the settlement. On March 16, 2015, the Company funded into an escrow account its portion of the settlement of approximately $1.0 million, and the remaining settlement payment will be covered by the Company's director and officer insurance providers. The settlement payment will be released from escrow subject to and upon final court approval of the settlement. ERNST & YOUNG: Arbitration Policy Enforceable, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a New Jersey appeals court ruled July 23 that three former employees of auditing giant Ernst & Young must have their age discrimination claims sent to arbitration because they agreed to alternative dispute resolution by staying on the job. In a published ruling, the three-judge Appellate Division panel upheld language in Ernst & Young's employment policy that said its employees demonstrated their acceptance of a mandatory arbitration policy by remaining company employees. "We conclude EY's ADR policy . . . is valid and enforceable," said Appellate Division Judge Jerome St. John in Jaworski v. Ernst & Young. Judges Marie Lihotz and Marianne Espinosa joined in the ruling. The plaintiffs -- Paul Jaworski, Alexander Haggis and Robert Holewinski -- filed suits alleging that Ernst & Young violated the state's Law Against Discrimination by firing them because of their age. Mr. Jaworski, 61 when fired, was the finance director of the company's Global Financial Group and had worked for Ernst & Young for 13 years, according to the court's opinion. Mr. Haggis was 57 when he was fired. He had been the manager of accounting and had worked at the company for 17 years. Mr. Holewinski, 55 when fired, was the associate director of finance in Ernst & Young's Global Infrastructure Group. In 2002, Ernst & Young adopted what it called its Common Ground Program. As part of the program, employment disputes were to be first handled through mediation and then, if that was not successful, through arbitration. The program barred employees from filing lawsuits, according to the opinion. The program was amended several times in the following years. However, employees were continually told that continuing with their employment for a certain period of time was an acknowledgement and acceptance of the program's arbitration requirements, the opinion said. After being fired, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court and challenged the enforceability of the mandatory arbitration requirement. Judge Mary Costello upheld the requirements of the program and ordered the parties into arbitration. The plaintiffs appealed. Their attorney, Christopher Lenzo, said he would ask the state Supreme Court to hear another appeal. Employment agreements such as the one at Ernst & Young create a "legal fiction" that an employee actually agrees with the terms, said Mr. Lenzo, of Lenzo & Reis in Morristown. "Employees who have to work for a living have to choose between their jobs or a jury trial. This is not voluntary. "This is yet another example of a self-serving decision by the judiciary to keep its dockets low," Mr. Lenzo added. Ernst & Young's attorney, Robert Szyba, of the New York office of Seyfarth Shaw, did not return a call seeking comment. In their appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the arbitration language constituted an illusory agreement because Ernst & Young retained the right to unilaterally modify its terms. They also argued that they never agreed to arbitration if they were fired, that the program violates their constitutional right to a jury trial and that it was unconscionable because it imposed substantial forum costs on the plaintiffs that they would not face if their claims were heard in court. Judge St. John said the appeals court rejected the first argument because employers need flexibility to adapt to changes in the law and should not be forced to negotiate changes with each individual employee. And, he said, it was clear that Ernst & Young gave adequate notice to employees about changes in its policies. The appeals court rejected the second of the plaintiffs' arguments by noting that the program said all disputes must be settled through arbitration. Regarding the claim that the program's requirements violated the plaintiffs' constitutional right to trial by jury, the appeals court cited the state Supreme Court's ruling from last year in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group. In that case, the court upheld a waiver of rights if the waiver was clear and unambiguous. That was the case here, Judge St. John said. Lastly, the appeals court rejected the claim that arbitration would force the plaintiffs to carry the costs. The program, Judge St. John said, clearly points out that both sides will share the costs and that the company, if it prevails, would not seek to recover costs from plaintiffs. Mr. Lenzo said one reason he believes the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case is because it has not addressed the issue of illusory agreements. "I think they will want to weigh in on this," he said. FAIR COLLECTIONS: Must Defend Against "Martin" FCRA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George J. Hazel of the District of Maryland, Southern Division denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case KEVIN D. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. GJH-14-3191 (D. Md.) Plaintiff Kevin D. Martin was interviewed for a position with defendant Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), where the latter offered a position to the plaintiff. As part of the hiring process, Martin signed a form entitled Consent to Request Consumer Report and Investigative Consumer Report Information, which FCO uses the form to perform background checks on applicants for employment and uses the screening services of Sterling Infosystems, Inc. to perform the background check. The disclosure form requires the potential employee to acknowledge that Sterling will obtain a consumer report and/or consumer investigative report and send it to FCO for employment purposes. The disclosure form also requires the potential employee to acknowledge that Sterling may obtain additional information about the applicant from a number of sources. After Martin signed the disclosure form, Sterling completed the background check on August 14, 2014. The resulting report inaccurately stated that Martin had been arrested for a felony offense on August 18, 2007 in Charleston. South Carolina. Martin received a letter from FCO rescinding the offer of employment along with a copy of the background report. Martin called both FCO and Sterling to dispute the background report findings. Although Sterling stated that they would respond to his dispute, Martin did not receive a reply and lost the job opportunity at FCO. Plaintiff brought a two-count complaint against defendant FCO as a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. (FCRA). FCO has moved to dismiss count one, contending that Martin has failed to state a claim. In count one, Martin alleges that FCO willfully or negligently violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2) by procuring or causing to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure. Judge Hazel denied FCO's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Hazel's memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/fJxEL5from Leagle.com. Kevin D Martin, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- David A. Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- at Francis and Mailman PC; Martin Eugene Wolf -- at at Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chts. Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin A Risch -- erisch@ewmd.com -- Susannah Eaton Smith -- ssmith@ewva.com -- at Eccleston and Wolf PC FEDEX CORP: Settles Dissident-Contractors' Suit ----------------------------------------------- Melissa Kay, writing for Financial Trend, reported that package carrier FedEx Corporation (NYSE:FDX) announced on July 8 that it had entered into a settlement with dissident-contractors, led by Dean Alexander. The lawsuit before United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleged the company of wrongly fully classifying its contractors, and not in compliance with California Labor Code as well as the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs now claim compensation for deductions, late wage payment and unpaid overtime. The period of dispute of classifying the employees was between November 17, 2000 and October 15, 2007 with FedEx Ground. Over seventeen of the contractors also seek meal and rest break compensation, as they were not allowed these perks, despite California Labor Code. The settlement resolves that FedEx Corporation (NYSE:FDX) will pay $228 million to resolve the lawsuit and gain release from the claims asserted via the lawsuit. The classification of employees, numbering nearly 2,300 was not in compliance with Californian Labor code. The $228 million settlement will be inclusive of all legal fees to attorneys as well. Every class member settlement will be based on a particular formula and will be subject to the dates as well as duration of the individual contracts with FedEx Ground. The settlement will consider the number of hours and days of work, as well as the vehicles used besides the miles driven to execute the order. However, the settlement will be only after due consideration by the District Court. The current preliminary approval has also fixed the time line during which those seeking compensation will be notified. They will also be provided with an opportunity to file the claim and to receive the payment due as part of the settlement process. All parties are now waiting for the Fairness Hearing notice period to lapse, before they seek final approval of the settlement. At this timeline, if any objections are to be raised, they would be considered. FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Alisa Johnson v. State of Florida, Department of State, Case No. 2015 CA 000967, was removed from the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00308-RH-CAS to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges discrimination and retaliation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marie A. Mattox, Esq. MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 383-4800 Facsimile: (850) 383-4801 E-mail: Marie@mattoxlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Linda Bond Edwards, Esq. Brian L. Hayden, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10507 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2507 Telephone: (850) 222-6550 Telecopier: (850) 222-8783 E-mail: ledwards@rumberger.com bhayden@rumberger.com FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces 2 Possible Data Breach Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that Florida Hospital is facing two possible class action lawsuits regarding two separate data breaches of patient information over the past four years. The hospital is battling both suits, and has recently submitted motions to toss them both out. The first data breach, revealed in August 2011, involved Florida Hospital employees Dale Munroe and Katrina Munroe combing through thousands of patient records and selling data to lawyers and chiropractors. Both employees were fired and charged criminally. The second breach, discovered in May 2014, involved two employees printing portions of medical records for at least 9,000 patients for over two years. Those employees were also fired but not named in the lawsuits. That breach was allegedly discovered by state investigators of a criminal case. The first lawsuit is handled by a Chicago-based law firm Edelson, and local attorney Edmund Normand. The named plaintiffs in that case are Richard Faircloth, who was a patient at Florida Hospital's Apopka campus, and Consuelo Armesto, a former patient at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Campus. A new hearing is coming up soon regarding Florida Hospital's motion to dismiss the Faircloth case. Attorney John Yanchunis of Orlando law firm Morgan & Morgan is handling a case tied to the May 2014 breach. The named plaintiffs in that case are Heather and Sebastian Peralta of Altamonte, and their daughter Janson Peralta. The Peralta case, filed more recently, cites the previous case as evidence that the hospital has known about data breaches for a while now. "Hospital are good about delivering medical services. Other kinds of things, like this, they are not so good at, because it's not their business," Yanchunis said. "But that must change now, and there's a movement now to install systems to better detect access to information." Florida Hospital and its attorneys did not immediately respond to phone calls and emails about the lawsuits, which are both pending in Orange County Circuit Court. But the hospital has argued that the lawsuits are missing an important fact: the plaintiffs haven't suffered any identity theft, at least not yet. Both lawsuits rely on allegations that the patients involved had "expected and paid for" data security at the hospital. But Florida Hospital's attorneys argue that no Florida court has recognized a fiduciary duty between a hospital and a patient. The hospital also argues that the plaintiffs can't enforce federal HIPAA laws through private civil action, that they can't sue based on "increased risk of identity theft." The hospital also argues that their employees were willfully violating the policies regarding HIPAA compliance and patient data security. Data stolen from medical records is a common method used by identity thieves, especially for filing fake tax returns seeking bogus tax refunds. There's an additional wrinkle in the Peralta case. Yanchunis noted that the Peralta's daughter isn't even eligible for credit protection services yet, but that her data could be used in an identity theft years from now. According to the court record, the Munroes were paid $10,000 by local chiropractor Sergei Kusyakov to pull out information on victims of motor vehicle accidents -- some of whom then received calls from Kusyakov's office with offers of chiropractic care. The Munroes and Kusyakov all pleaded guilty to the crimes. FOOT LOCKER: Still Facing "Pereira" Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in one case in which plaintiff alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering them the opportunity to participate in the class action, and approximately 5,027 have opted into the class action. FOOT LOCKER: Still a Defendant in Wage and Hour Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot Locker filed in state court in California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in federal court in New York, all of these actions were consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation. In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois employees only. The Company and plaintiffs have entered into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated cases, Hill and Cortes, that is subject to court approval. The court recently granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. FOOT LOCKER: Still Defending Osberg Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the conversion. Plaintiff's current claims are for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the Summary Plan Description. The district court issued rulings certifying the class. The Company sought leave to appeal the class certification rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but these applications were denied. Trial had been adjourned to July 13, 2015. FORD MOTOR: NJ Couple Sues Over Carbon Monoxide Leak ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas Zambito, writing for NJ.com, reported that a New Jersey couple is suing Ford Motor Company, claiming their Explorer leaks toxic levels of carbon monoxide into its passenger cabin while the car is on the move. Stephen Schondel and his wife, Linda King-Schondel of Middletown, filed the lawsuit against Ford in state Superior Court in Monmouth County in May. Ford asked a judge to have the case moved into U.S. District Court. The couple's lawyers are seeking a judge's order having the lawsuit declared a class action that would cover New Jersey residents who have bought or leased the Explorer as well as Ford's Edge and Lincoln MKX models between the years 2011 and 2015. The lawsuit claims Ford has known about the problem since 2012 but has done little to correct it, leaving hundreds of thousands of "defective vehicles" on the road. The lawsuit pins the blame on a design flaw in Explorers manufactured between 2011 and 2015 that allows exhaust and gases, including carbon monoxide, to enter the car's cabin. "Ford has known about this problem since 2012," the lawsuit says. "Since then it has serviced thousands of vehicles around the world, almost all without succeeding in eliminating the exhaust leak. It has bought back hundreds of vehicles around the world, mostly overseas, because it has been unable to fix the leak. It has attempted a variety of fixes, all without success.'' Ford's lawyers say that as of July 1, 2015, the company has sold nearly 62,000 Explorers from the model years 2011 to 2015 to customers living in New Jersey. The Schondels leased a 2014 Ford Explorer from a Red Bank dealership in January 2014, according to the lawsuit. The same year they say they told their dealer of "an exhaust odor" while the car was in use. The dealer told them that there was "no carbon monoxide entering the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and that the problem was not a hazard to health," the lawsuit alleges. A Ford spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. And Matthew Goldberg, the attorney representing Ford in the case, could not be reached for comment. Ford has told owners said that no carbon monoxide enters the compartment and that the vehicles do not present a health hazard, according to the lawsuit. The Schondels said tests they had done on the car in 2015 showed that the car's air conditioning system "picks up the gas entering around the rear ejector valve and blows it into the cabin of the vehicle," the lawsuit says. In July 2014, the lawsuit claims, Ford issued a safety bulletin to dealers providing instructions for eliminating the presence of an exhaust odor in Explorers for the model years 2011 through 2015. A similar bulletin was issued in 2012, the lawsuit adds. But, the lawsuit says, Ford did not inform car owners "even though these defects present health and life safety issues to occupants of the vehicles," the lawsuit adds. "Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2015 model year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation," the lawsuit adds. The lawsuit accuses Ford of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as the state's Motor Vehicle Warranty Act, known as the Lemon Law. FOREST LAB: Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations Period Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion in the case MEGAN BARRETT, LINDSEY HOUSER, JENNIFER JONES, JENNIFER SEARD, ERIN ECKENRODE, CHRISTY LOWDER, JULIE SMYTH, ANDREA HARLEY, KIMBERLY CLINTON, and MARIE AVILA, TRACY LE, each individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female employees, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST LABORATORIES, INC. AND FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, NO. 12-CV-5224 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.) Plaintiffs are 11 current or former female employees of defendants Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who brought individual and class claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq. An initial case management conference scheduled for December 21, 2012, was adjourned indefinitely upon plaintiffs' request and with defendants' consent in anticipation of defendants' motion to dismiss. After that motion was filed, plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), which they did on March 20, 2013. Defendants again moved to dismiss and each party sought and received extensions at various points. Plaintiffs wrote on behalf of both parties to advise that the parties had begun the meet-and-confer process. Plaintiffs first advised of their desire to seek expedited discovery of certain information and equitable tolling for the EPA claims. Magistrate Judge Dolinger, to whom the case was subsequently referred for general pre-trial matters, entered a case management plan on December 11, 2014. Plaintiffs move for equitable tolling of the limitations period for potential collective action members' claims under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d). They seek to toll the statute of limitations from April 29, 2013, the date on which defendants filed their motion to dismiss the SAC through the date conditional certification for the collective action is granted. Defendants object to any further tolling. Judge Abrams denied plaintiffs' motion. A copy of Judge Abrams's opinion and order dated July 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Z95XgLfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by David W. Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- David Hahn Tracey -- dtracey@sanfordheisler.com -- Deborah Kristine Marcuse -- dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com -- Jeremy Heisler -- jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- Katherine Leong -- Katie Mueting -- kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- Lubna Aftab Alam -- Michael Douglas Palmer -- mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Stefanie Roemer -- sroemer@sanfordheisler.com -- Thomas J Henderson -- thenderson@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP Defendants, represented by Gary Drew Friedman -- gary.friedman@weil.com -- Allison Millie Warner -- millie.warner@weil.com -- Ami Gersen Zweig -- ami.zweig@weil.com -- Courtney Patrice Fain -- courtney.fain@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP FURIEX PHARMA: Court Cuts Fees for Plaintiff Counsel ---------------------------------------------------- Mack Sperling, writing for The National Law Review, reported that the Business Court knocked down a fee request of Plaintiffs' class action counsel to $500,000, from the $660,000 requested, in an Order in Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2015 NCBC 68. The Settlement of the Class Action The ruling was entered in conjunction with the approval of a settlement of four class actions (two filed in North Carolina and two filed in Delaware). The lawsuits concerned a challenge to Defendant Furiex's merger with Defendants Royal Empress, Inc. and Royal's affiliate Forest Laboratories, Inc. As a part of the settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel reserved the right to apply to the Court for approval of fees not to exceed $695,000. Given that the Defendants had waived their right to challenge the fee application, it fell to Judge McGuire to determine whether the fees requested were reasonable. If the first question in your mind is "how much money did the Plaintiff obtain for the class?" the answer is none. The claimed value to the class came in the waiver of "DADW provisions" in Confidentiality Agreements executed by the Defendants Royal Empress and Forest Laboratories as well as other potential buyers of Furiex. There were also some additional disclosures obtained via the settlement. DADW Provisions? The NC Business Court hasn't had the opportunity to consider the viability of DADW -- don't ask, don't waive -- provisions, but the Delaware Court of Chancery has ruled that they are not presumptively impermissible. If you are wondering what a DADW provision does, it prohibits the entity signing it from making an offer for the target corporation's shares without an express invitation from the target's Board of Directors. The "don't ask" aspect prevents the signing party from asking the target's Board to waive that restriction. Since the Court didn't discuss the validity of the DADW provision at all, except to say that the waiver of it procured by the litigation was "a significant benefit to shareholders," the validity of this type of deal protection device in North Carolina remains untested. Given that the Court accepted Plaintiffs' counsel's argument that they had obtained value for the class in the waiver of the DADW restriction (meriting fees of half a million dollars), lawyers in North Carolina should be cautious about including DADW's in their merger related documents . The lawyers for the class (two New York class action firms) had a pretty high opinion of the value that they had obtained for the class. The requested that the Court allow $660,000 in fees for 700 hours of work. You don't need to do the math to figure the hourly rate that those figures yield. Judge McGuire calculated it at a staggering $941.72 per hour, which was triple the hourly fee the Business Court had approved in a previous class action (In re Harris Teeter Merger Litig., 2014 NCBC 44) and seven times the hourly fee awarded in another class action approval (In re Progress Energy Shareholder Litig., 2011 NCBC 44). The Business Court Refused To Apply A Multiplier To Plaintiffs' Counsel's Lodestar The $660,000 sought was based on a request for a multiplier of 1.7 to be applied to the lodestar amount established by Plaintiffs' counsel's regular billing rates (that was $388,465). A "lodestar," if you are not familiar with the term, Wikipedia defines it as "a method of computing attorney's fees whereby a trial court must multiply the number of hours reasonably spent by trial counsel by a reasonable hourly rate." Judge McGuire observed that no reported North Carolina appellate decision had ever applied a multiplier to increase a lodestar amount, so he decided that the "best course is to assess the requested fees as if Plaintiffs were seeking an award of $941.72 per hour, and to consider such request based on whether special legal skills and experience were involved that are not available in North Carolina, the rates charged by attorneys for comparable work in the local area, and in light of the result obtained for the amount of work expended." Were North Carolina attorneys capable of handling this litigation? The Plaintiffs' local counsel represented to the Court that "he did not believe there were a substantial number of attorneys in North Carolina prosecuting this type of shareholder action." Judge McGuire said that the lack of specific information whether there were North Carolina attorneys qualified to handle the case warranted in favor of a "premium rate." The Court Said That A Fee Award Of $941.72 Per Hour Would Be "Extraordinary" Looking at the electronic docket sheet in the case, Plaintiffs' counsel did little more than filing a Complaint, a Motion for Expedited Discovery, and a Motion for approval of the settlement that they brokered. On top of that, they took two depositions and reviewed only a thousand pages of documents. Maybe the case did require supremely qualified counsel not available in NC. The rates "generally charged for sophisticated business litigation in North Carolina" were deemed to be $321.91 per hour (found to be "reasonable in In re Harris Teeter, 2014 NCBC 44 at par. 63), although Judge McGuire said that "his own experience is that rates of approximately $300 -- $550 per hour are typical of the fees charged for this type of work in Wake County, North Carolina. Looking at the substantially higher hourly fee of $941.72 sought by Plaintiffs' counsel, Judge McGuire deemed it to be an "extraordinary amount" The Judge exercised his discretion and awarded $500,000 in fees. That yielded an hourly rate of $712.96, still a pretty impressive award. And notwithstanding Judge McGuire's rejection of the application of a multiplier, I calculate that as a multiplier of 1.28711724 on the lodestar of $388,465. GENERAL MOTORS CANADA: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ex-Dealers --------------------------------------------------------- Greg Keenan, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that a class-action lawsuit by former General Motors of Canada Ltd. dealers against the company has been dismissed but their claim against a Toronto law firm has been upheld. The dealers, who were terminated as the auto maker successfully staved off bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in 2009, have been awarded C$45-million in damages against Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. That is considerably less than the C$375-million to C$425-million claim they urged Judge Thomas McEwen to levy on the law firm. The retailers sued GM Canada and the law firm after their dealerships were wound up in 2009. They argued in part that the six days the company gave them to assess wind-down agreements they signed in return for compensation was insufficient and that the law firm was in conflict of interest because it represented both dealers and the federal government, which was being asked to help bail out the company. The suit is one of several launched by individual dealers or groups of GM Canada dealers in the wake of the 2008-2009 recession, which led to the elimination of 240 dealerships in Canada, the termination of the Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer brands and the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by General Motors Co. The Ontario Superior Court judgment provides a glimpse of the crisis facing GM Canada and its parent company in the depths of the recession as auto sales plunged, bondholders launched a lawsuit and the company and its parent racked up billions of dollars in losses. The Canadian unit lost C$2.7-billion in 2007 -- the year before the recession hit -- and another C$4.3-billion in 2008. GM Canada (GMCL) does not release annual profit and loss statements publicly so the evidence introduced in the trial provides the first public indication of how deep the pool of red ink grew. "GM, GMCL and the dealers were all surprised by the extraordinary pace and painful depth of the financial crisis," Judge McEwen wrote. GM Canada terminated about one-third of its outlets in the country and 181 of those dealers signed on to the class-action suit. They will each be awarded about C$249,000 if the ruling stands. Judge McEwen agreed with GM Canada's arguments that it gave the dealers sufficient notice to make a decision about whether to accept a wind-down agreement and compensation and that the cuts in its dealer network were necessary in order to secure financial assistance from federal and Ontario taxpayers. "GMCL did not mislead dealers by stating that the governments mandated the cuts," he wrote. But he was sharply critical of Cassels Brock, which was advising Industry Canada in negotiations with GM Canada and its parent company and then signed on to represent a group of dealers. "Cassels acted irresponsibly and unprofessionally by failing to have an effective conflicts checking system in place -- that is one which actually leads to lawyers discussing and resolving potential conflicts," he wrote. "Cassels is liable for its failure to heed the alarm bells that were audible, despite the deficiencies of its conflicts checking system." While GM Canada stayed out of bankruptcy protection, Canadian and Ontario taxpayers contributed C$10.8-billion to the bailout of its parent, which used some of that money to reduce a massive pension deficit in plans set up for salaried and hourly employees. GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Alyssa Clemmons vs. General Nutrition Corp, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-05036, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05104 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2621. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com tomthrash@sbcglobal.net The Defendants are represented by: Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq. MITCHELL WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8869 E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Reyes v. General Nutrition Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20513, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05107 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2621. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Marion Quaranta, Esq. WEIL QUARANTA, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-5352 Facsimile: (305) 372-5355 E-mail: John@wqmlaw.net - and - Ronald Peter Weil, Esq. RONALD WEIL PA 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-5352 Facsimile: (305) 372-5355 E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Hannah Lisbeth Sorcic, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-6547 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: hsorcic@reedsmith.com GEO GROUP: Allows Suit by Immigrant Detainees to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Prendergast, writing for Westword, reported that in a move that could have resounding consequences for corrections practices and the for-profit prison industry in particular, a Denver federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by nine federal immigrant detainees, who alleged that a private prison contractor forced them to perform maintenance and cleaning jobs for little or no pay. The suit, which is seeking class-action status, accuses the company of violating federal laws prohibiting human trafficking and forced labor and seeks millions of dollars in damages. Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane threw out some of the plaintiffs' claims but allowed the case against The GEO Group, which operates a detention facility in Aurora under contract with U.S. Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to move forward. The decision was hailed as "a tremendous victory for civil immigrant detainees nationwide" by Nina DiSalvo, the executive director of Towards Justice, a Denver-based nonprofit that partnered with several law firms to bring the action. "The judge's decision allows us to address the systemic problems with GEO's treatment of immigrant workers throughout the legal system." One of the largest private prison companies in the world, GEO operates 66 correctional facilities in the United States, including ICE detention centers in Washington, Florida, and Colorado. The complaint alleges that Aurora detainees participate in a "voluntary work program" that includes laundry, kitchen and cleaning jobs, for which they are paid a dollar a day. Six detainees are also selected at random each day to clean the living pods without pay; refusal can result in being placed in solitary confinement. The lawsuit argued that the arrangement violates Colorado's minimum wage law. Judge Kane disagreed, since the state's labor laws specifically carve out an exception for prisoners, who are not considered employees. But Kane found merit in the claim that GEO's approach to the pod-cleaning assignments -- do it or get thrown in the hole -- may be a violation of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits involuntary servitude and coercive methods to demand work "by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint." The judge also allowed a claim involving unjust enrichment to proceed. Most correctional systems depend on cheap inmate labor to keep costs down. Kane's denial of GEO's motion to dismiss doesn't signal an end to that practice. It does, however, raise questions about the ability of a private contractor to demand that inmates perform basic maintenance or cleaning tasks under threat of further punishment. "Using forced detainee labor is an integral tool in maintaining GEO's profitability under its contracts with ICE," Nashville attorney Andrew Free, a co-counsel in the case, noted in prepared statement. "The court's decision represents an important step forward in ending that morally bankrupt business model." In response to a request for comment, The GEO Group corporate headquarters provided a statement that reads, in part: "GEO's facilities, including the Aurora, Colo., facility, provide high quality services in safe, secure, and humane residential environments, and our company strongly refutes allegations to the contrary. The volunteer work program at immigration facilities as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program are set by the federal government. Our facilities adhere to these standards as well as strict contractual requirements and all standards set by ICE, and the agency employs several full-time, on-site contract monitors who have a physical presence at each of GEO's facilities." GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dore v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20618, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05108 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2621. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard PO Drawer 3626 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3626 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: JSX@searcylaw.com - and - Patrick Shawn Spellacy, Esq. KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A. 200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 463-3008 Facsimile: (954) 463-3010 E-mail: spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com - and - Robert J. Neary, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. Monica Marie McNulty, Esq. Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 728-2959 E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com TR@kttlaw.com mmcnulty@kttlaw.com AMM@kttlaw.com GOLDMAN PHIPPS: Judge Grants Class Certification Bid in "Downing" ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case DON M. DOWNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN PHIPPS PLLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13CV206 CDP (E.D. Mo.) The case originated in a continuing multi-district litigation that began after the introduction of Bayer's genetically modified rice into the United States domestic rice supply. Thousands of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas rice farmers and others involved in the rice business filed suit against various Bayer entities in federal and state courts. The court appointed Don Downing and Adam Levitt as Co-Lead Counsel of a leadership group of attorneys. A common-benefit trust fund (CBF Trust) was ordered established to compensate attorneys for services rendered on behalf of all the plaintiffs. Downing and Levitt were named as Co-Trustees of the Trust. The Co-Lead Counsel and additional attorneys at their request (the common-benefit attorneys) were directed to manage pretrial proceedings on behalf of all MDL plaintiffs. Over the course of five years, the common-benefit attorneys performed a variety of work, including, among other things, drafting a master consolidated complaint against Bayer under the laws of five states. The Goldman Phipps PLLC (Phipps legal team) opposes the creation of the CBF Trust, including the requested allocation of legal fees by the leadership counsel and sought, in the alternative, over $13 million that it claimed as reimbursement for its own common- benefit fees. Stephen B. Murray, Sr., the Murray Law Firm, Charles A. Banks, and the Banks Law Firm, PLLC, objected to the creation of the CBF Trust but did not object to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation regarding payment of common- benefit attorney's fees from the CBF Trust. The court ordered that the common-benefit attorneys' expenses be paid from the Trust. The court also awarded up to $72 million in attorneys' fees. However, only approximately $56.5 million of the potential award has been obtained by the Trust. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant law firms used some of their own litigation work product when representing different clients in state-court cases against Bayer. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all "persons and entities that provided or paid for common-benefit services, materials, and/or related expense items. They also seek to certify a subclass limited to those who provided common-benefit services. Magistrate Judge Perry granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and that class plaintiffs Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC, and Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C., are appointed as class representatives to represent the following class: All persons and entities that provided or paid for common- benefit services, materials, and/or related expense items (except defendants). They are also appointed to represent the following subclass: All persons and entities that provided common-benefit services (except Defendants). Magistrate Judge Perry appointed as class counsel: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Todd E. Hilton, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd. Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 A copy of Judge Perry's memorandum and order dated July 14, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/1KWGa3from Leagle.com. Don M. Downing and Adam J. Levitt, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- at GRANT AND EISENHOFER PA; Bradley T. Wilders -- wilders@stuevesiegel.com -- Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Todd E. Hilton -- hilton@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Grant L. Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- at DAVIS AND BETHUNE; Gretchen Garrison -- Jason D. Sapp -- Don M. Downing -- at GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.; Jennifer M. Hoekstra -- jhoekstra@nbalawfirm.com -- Richard J. Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- at NEBLETT AND BEARD; Stacey T. Kelly -- breen@whafh.com -- at WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER; Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- at HARE AND WYNN, LLP Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC and Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C., Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley T. Wilders -- wilders@stuevesiegel.com -- Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Todd E. Hilton -- hilton@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP Defendants, represented by Michael A. Vitale -- mav@herzogcrebs.com -- Brian M. Wacker -- bmw@herzogcrebs.com -- Peter W. Herzog -- pwh@herzogcrebs.com -- at HERZOG CREBS LLP Riceland Foods, Inc., Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- John R. Musgrave -- jmusgrave@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kimberly M. Bousquet -- kbousquet@thompsoncoburn.com -- at THOMPSON COBURN, LLP GRINDR LLC: Sued Over Lack of Membership Information ---------------------------------------------------- Shaun Zinck, writing for LegalNewsline, reported that a popular all-male social networking site is being sued over allegations the site didn't follow California state law by informing users they could cancel their membership. Mark Howell filed the lawsuit on June 18 in United States District Court in California against Grindr LLC claiming the networking website failed to include a specific statement letting users know they had three days to cancel their membership. According to the lawsuit, Grindr requires users to enter into a "dating service contract" when they sign up for its services. Under state law, a business that requires a dating service contract must include a statement, near where the user will sign the contract, that the buyer can cancel the agreement without penalty or obligation before midnight on the third business following the date of the contract, the suit claims. The lawsuit also claims Grindr didn't include the name or address of the dating service operator who could be notified of a potential cancelation, which is also a violation of state law. Howell is seeking class status for California users of Grindr, and is also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. Howell is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew M. Loker of Kazerouni Law Group, APC in Costa Mesa, Calif.; Todd M. Friedman of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego. United States District Court for the Southern District of California case number 15-cv-1337. HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Worker Files Reimbursement, Minimum Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Levine, writing for Business Insider, reported that on-demand cleaning company Handy Technologies was sued by a worker alleging she should be classified as an employee, the latest in a debate over whether workers in the sharing economy are independent contractors or employees entitled to benefits. The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a Massachusetts federal court, seeks reimbursement of expenses and minimum wages for Handy workers. The results of the broader legal battle could reshape the sharing economy, as companies say the contractor model allows for flexibility that many see as key to their success. The lawyer representing the employee is Shannon Liss-Riordan, who is representing workers from Uber, Lyft, Postmates, and other companies in similar cases. In June, a California labor official found that one San Francisco- based driver for ride service Uber was an employee and entitled to expenses. An ultimate finding against companies like Handy and Uber could force them to pay Social Security, workers' compensation, and unemployment insurance. Maisha Emmanuel has worked as a Handy cleaner in the Boston area since last May and was often paid less than minimum wage, according to her lawsuit. One week she worked more than 30 hours and was paid only $14 because she had to buy a cleaning kit, the lawsuit said. In a statement, Handy said its workers "make on average over $17 an hour per job" using its platform. "We are creating opportunities for thousands of professionals who now have access to economic security for themselves and their families," the company said. Emmanuel's case was filed by the same attorney who brought two similar, high profile lawsuits against Uber and Lyft. In the past year at least three lawsuits alleging worker Misclassification have been filed against Handy, while competitor Homejoy has faced at least four, according to Westlaw dockets. One of the cases against Handy is pending, another is in arbitration, and a third was withdrawn. The four cases against Homejoy are pending. In May, technology blog Techcrunch reported that Handy was in acquisition talks for Homejoy. Homejoy representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. Handy's venture backers include TPG Growth, and in June the company announced it had reached one million customer bookings. The lawsuit in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts is Maisha Emmanuel vs. Handy Technologies Inc., 15-12914. HEALTH NET: Naturopathic Doctors, Patients File Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OANP) filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, Inc. (Health Net) and their contracted benefits provider American Specialty Health (ASH), alleging unlawful and discriminatory practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of naturopathic physicians and their patients who allege that Health Net discriminates against Oregon licensed naturopathic physicians by denying claims for services provided by Naturopathic Doctors (NDs) that are otherwise covered when delivered by a different medical provider. The "Non Discrimination in Health Care" section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as "Section 2706" (42 U.S.C. Section 300gg- 5), prohibits insurance carriers from discriminating against health care providers acting within the scope of their license. Lawsuit plaintiff and Health Net participant Eileen Fox-Quamme experienced the medical care limitations caused by Health Net's discriminatory practices first-hand. On October 27, 2014, a Health Net-contracted naturopathic physician saw Fox-Quamme for a routine preventative medical care visit, a service that all insurers are legally required to cover. Health Net's subcontractor ASH, which provides contracting and claims processing for all Health Net "complementary providers," including naturopathic doctors, denied her claim on November 4, 2014. After exhausting Health Net's grievance process, in February 2015 Fox-Quamme submitted an appeal of the denial through the law firm Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan. One month later, she received a letter from Health Net stating that while her claim had been correctly denied by ASH, ASH recommended that Health Net should consider paying the claim through its normal medical benefit regardless. "I see an ND for all my primary care, including my annual well woman exam last October," said Fox-Quamme. "Every insurer covers well women visits, but Health Net denied that claim because I had it done by a naturopathic doctor. The only reason they even considered reversing the denial was because a law firm submitted an appeal. It is a huge problem if I need a lawyer to access basic, covered benefits." To date, four other patients had their denials reversed after a law firm submitted an additional appeal. Eight months after Fox- Quamme's November 4, 2014 medical visit, the in-network Health Net naturopathic physician who provided her medical services has yet to be reimbursed by Health Net or its subcontractor ASH. Advocates have been working directly with federal agencies and state insurance commissioners for the last two years to implement and enforce the provider non-discrimination provision to little effect. Both providers and patients have filed complaints to the state insurance division as well as to the Department of Labor. The most common reply stated that their hands were tied in terms of enforcement without clear guidelines or clarification of the law. "The impact of this discrimination is clear," said OANP Board President Carrie Baldwin-Sayre, ND. "Patients face unnecessary barriers to covered medical services, and naturopathic physicians are being arbitrarily limited in providing routine and preventive medical care. Until we have an impact judgment ruling, insurance carriers will continue to skirt the law, and patients and practitioners will be forced to pay the price." The group hopes that the suit will ensure that all qualified providers are able to work to the full extent of their license to help Oregon meet the Triple Aim of better care, better outcomes, and lower cost. The class action seeks several remedies, including: (1) reimbursement to individuals who have been denied benefits under their Health Net health insurance plans; (2) repayment of profits retained by Health Net as a result of its discriminatory practices; (3) enforcement of non-discriminatory practices in the future; and, (4) a court order for Health Net and ASH that clarifies which of their practices are unlawfully discriminatory. The discriminatory Health Net/ASH practices cited in the lawsuit allege that unlawful limitations are imposed on naturopathic physicians as compared to other medical practitioners who provide commensurate medical services. These practices include: an annual limit on the number of reimbursable visits to naturopathic physician; the requirement of a Medical Necessity Review form, that other providers are not required to provide; a $1,500 maximum reimbursable cap for the use of naturopathic medical services; a limitation on certain types of medical care performed by naturopathic physicians that are within their scope of practice including, but not limited to, the delivery of preventative services; and, reimbursing naturopathic doctors at up to 80% less than other providers for the same service rather than varying reimbursement rates based on objective quality or performance measures. The Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine has licensed naturopathic physicians in Oregon since 1928 with a broad scope of practice that allows naturopathic doctors to practice as primary care providers, including providing all preventative services, prescribing pharmaceuticals, and ordering all tests necessary to diagnose and treat illness. Health Net included naturopathic physician services to their benefits as early as 2003, but has consistently restricted the scope of practice of naturopathic doctors by capping the number of times a patient could see their ND, limiting the kind of conditions that NDs can treat, declining payment for preventative services done by NDs, and/or restricting access to labs or pharmaceuticals when ordered by the ND. Plaintiffs believe this class action lawsuit will produce a much needed judgment to clarify the ACA's provider non-discrimination mandate for a variety of provider types in Oregon as well as nation-wide. About Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians' (OANP) mission is to support its members and improve the health of Oregonians through the advancement of Naturopathic Medicine. Naturopathic medicine is a distinct method of primary health care that combines centuries old natural, common-sense therapies with current advances in biomedical and diagnostic sciences covering all aspects of health. Learn more at www.oanp.org. HONDA MOTORS: Recalls 4.5-Mil. More Cars Over Defective Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that Japanese carmaker Honda is recalling 4.5 million more cars globally amid continuing fears of a potentially deadly defect in Takata airbags. At least eight deaths -- all in Honda cars -- have been linked to the airbag inflator, which can deploy with too much force spraying metal shrapnel. Globally, tens of millions of cars with Takata airbags have been recalled since 2008, most of them in the US. Other brands that have issued recalls include Nissan, General Motors and BMW. But Honda, the number three carmaker in Japan, has been hardest hit with 24.5 million cars recalled -- more than half of the global total. A Honda spokesman in Tokyo told AFP news agency on that the carmaker had found some airbag inflators had "uneven gas density, which we worry could do some harm". "It is a preventive measure and unlike other normal recalls we are not waiting for the full results of the research," he said. Honda is recalling about 1.63 million cars in Japan alone. The carmaker told the Reuters news agency that North America was not included in the latest recall. Nissan incident The announcement came a day after Nissan announced its first case of injuries sustained from a Takata airbag deployment. The airbag inflated and exploded in the passenger side of an X- Trail sport utility vehicle involved in a car crash in Iwata in central Japan on 25 June. Nissan said the passenger side window was smashed and high- temperature fragments were sent flying into the dashboard. The driver's left cheek was lightly burnt, although it remains unclear whether this was caused by the explosion. Earlier investigations showed Takata airbag inflators were not properly sealed and could be damaged by moisture. It is alleged that the airbags can burst under pressure, due to the instability of its chemical propellant, spraying shrapnel inside the car. Takata is currently facing multiple class action lawsuits and criminal and regulatory investigations in North America. ILLINOIS TOLL HIGHWAY: Judge Dismisses Non-Resident Driver's Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Manish S. Shah of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case JEFFREY D. COCHRAN, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CV 9145 (N.D. Ill.) The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is an administrative agency of the State of Illinois. The Authority operates Illinois's toll highway system. In that system, cars equipped with electronic transponders can pass under toll bridges at high speeds while tolls are automatically collected. But drivers without transponders must slow down and move to designated cash lanes to pay their tolls -- using a lane meant for transponders results in a missed toll. Jeffrey Cochran, an Ohio resident, drove to Chicago to visit his family. Unfamiliar with Illinois's toll highway system, and unable to understand the signs directing him to toll booths, he missed three tolls. He didn't know that he could avoid a fine by paying his missed tolls online or by phone within seven days, so he was assessed $60 in fines. Cochran brought a putative class action suit against the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and members of its Board of Directors, alleging that the way tolls and fines are collected in Illinois violates the United States Constitution and Illinois state law. Cochran complains that by collecting fines without adequate notice, the Authority violated his constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection of the laws. Also, in violation of state laws, Cochran contends that the Authority exceeded its powers, breached a contract, and was unjustly enriched. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Shah granted defendants' motion to dismiss: Cochran's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice and his federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. A copy of Judge Shah's memorandum opinion and order dated July 15, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/a3hqbVfrom Leagle.com. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Terrence D'Arcy, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Jeffrey Redick, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Earl Dotson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Jeffrey D Cochran, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Cusack Cronin, Cronin & Co., Ltd. & George W. Cochran, III, Law Office of George W. Cochran Paula Wolff, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin James J Banks, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin David Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Mark W. Peterson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin James Sweeney, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Tom Weisner, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Koetsch" Securities Litigation Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. intends to continue to defend vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended complaint in the In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: William Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation")." "On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by: * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA and PEAKS Program; * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our common stock; * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our artificially inflated statements of financial strength and understated liabilities; and * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase our common stock at inflated prices. The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008 through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems appropriate. On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 27, 2015. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended complaint. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ ITT Educational Services, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an amended complaint has been filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Hennen Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January 21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation"). On December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana). On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint includes allegations relating to: * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated financial statements; * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our liquidity and overall financial condition; * our compliance with Department of Education financial responsibility standards; and * our internal controls over financial reporting. The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest, costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Gallien Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. continues to defend against the Gallien class action litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under California law, we: * failed to pay wages owed; * failed to pay overtime compensation; * failed to provide meal and rest periods; * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements; * engaged in unlawful business practices; and * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks: * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses; * general damages; * pay for missed meal and rest periods; * restitution; * liquidated damages; * statutory penalties; * interest; * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses; * civil and statutory penalties; * injunctive relief; and * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable and appropriate. "We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint," the Company said. JIMMY JOHNS: "Watson" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gregory L. Frost of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division granted defendants' motion in the case SCOTT WATSON, Plaintiff, v. JIMMY JOHN'S, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-768 (S.D. Ohio) Emily Brunner, a Second Assistant Store Manager (2nd ASM) at a Jimmy John's franchisee filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA), against multiple defendants, including in the instant case. She seeks to certify a class of all current and former, similarly situated employees at all Jimmy John's franchisee- and franchisor- owned locations. Brunner also alleges violations of the Illinois wage law (IWL). Subsequently, in the Northern District of Illinois, another plaintiff brought an action advancing substantially the same claims, on behalf of a substantially similar class of plaintiffs, and against substantially similar defendants, which the court consolidated the two cases. On January 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, plaintiffs Rodriguez, Kavanagh, and Womack filed a suit against defendants. On March 2, 2015, plaintiff Scott Watson filed the present action. Subsequently, plaintiffs Rodriguez, Kavanagh, and Womack voluntarily dismissed their suit and opted-in to the present action, along with opt-in plaintiff Ladd. Plaintiffs filed suit individually and on behalf of all Assistant Store Managers. Plaintiffs describe the putative class as current and former Assistant Store Managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles. Plaintiffs allege that, in defiance of state and federal law, defendants misclassified the putative class as exempt employees. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation. Each defendant here is also a defendant in the Brunner case. Plaintiffs' claims are as follows: (1) an FLSA claim on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class for unpaid overtime; (2) an Ohio wage law claim (OWL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and an Ohio class for unpaid overtime; and (3) an OWL claim on behalf of themselves and an Ohio sub-class for failure to keep records of hours worked. Plaintiffs base their case on a theory of joint employer liability. Defendants exercised significant control over the operations of Jimmy John's franchisees. Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois, stay the case until the Brunner court decides the issue of joint employment, or dismiss the case. Judge Frost granted defendants' motion to transfer; and the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A copy of Judge Frost's opinion and order dated July 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/OKd3sDfrom Leagle.com. Scott Watson, Plaintiff, represented by: Drew T Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 W 9th St #200 Cleveland, OH 44113-1254 Telephone: 216-522-9000 Facsimile: 866-823-3332 - and - Alan L Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: 800-616-4000 Facsimile: 561-447-8831 Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Fran L Rudich, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: 914-934-9200 Facsimile: 914-934-9220 - and - Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. Michael N Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000 Facsimile: 646-509-2060 Email: jms@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com Defendants, represented by Matthew Scott Zeiger -- zeigerm@litohio.com -- at Zeiger Tigges & Little LLP; Christopher M Cascino -- ccascino@seyfarth.com -- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Jason John Englund -- jenglund@seyfarth.com -- Jennifer Ann Riley -- jriley@seyfarth.com -- Matthew James Gagnon -- mgagnon@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Bedtime Products False Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Grimoldby, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a woman is suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company's Bedtime Products that she, and many other parents, have purchased to help their babies sleep better. Stephanie Leiner, of Chillicothe, filed a class action lawsuit July 2 in federal court in Chicago against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., of Skillman, New Jersey, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and unjust enrichment, among other counts. In the lawsuit, Leiner claims she and other Illinois consumers purchased Johnson & Johnson Bedtime Products -- specifically, Johnson's Bedtime Bath and Johnson's Bedtime Lotion -- at a premium price after seeing advertisements claiming such products are "clinically proven" to help babies sleep better. In Leiner's experience, after using the Bedtime Products as part of the company's recommended 3-step nightly routine with her child for a period of time in 2014, she found the products did not help her baby sleep better. The complaint states Bedtime Products are at least $1 more expensive than other Johnson and Johnson products that do not claim to have "clinically proven" benefits. Had Leiner and other consumers been aware that no studies show the premium products are clinically proven to provide any results, they would have not have purchased the Bedtime Products, she argues. "Given the existence of similar bath and skin lotion products, long sold by J&J, for washing and moisturizing a baby's skin, consumers would purchase the Bedtime Products if, and only if, they were exposed to Defendant's pervasive labeling and advertising campaign that these new Products did something that its others did not do -- here, it is that the Bedtime Products were (and are) clinically proven to help baby sleep better," the complaint states. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act prohibits deceptive acts or practices, the lawsuit says, yet Johnson & Johnson has spent extensive amounts of money on a massive marketing campaign to convey its deceptive message. "Since the launch of the Products and to the present, J&J has consistently and uniformly stated on its labeling and in its other advertisements that the Products are clinically proven to help babies sleep better. J&J intended the statement to appear scientific and give the claims a special significance, when in reality, Defendant knows the Products themselves are not clinically proven," the complaint reads. Johnson and Johnson has reaped the benefits of its false representations, collecting millions of dollars from the sales of its Bedtime Products, the complaint states. Leiner has requested a jury trial and treble damages for herself and the class, plus attorneys' fees and costs. While individual damages likely will be small, the complaint states the aggregate damages sustained by the class are likely in the millions. Leiner also requests Johnson & Johnson create and distribute a corrective advertising campaign. Leiner is represented by Jayne A. Goldstein and Mark B. Goldstein, of Pomerantz LLP in Chicago; James C. Shah and Natalie Finkelman Bennett, of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah LLP in Media, Pa.; and James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan, Andrew C. Ficzko, Teresa M. Becvar and Jorge A. Gamboa, of Stephan Zouras LLP in Chicago. JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Firms Spar Over Forex Suit Lead Role ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll lost an early round on July 27 in a spat with Hausfeld and another plaintiffs firm over who should lead part of a sprawling antitrust litigation over alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates. But the dispute isn't fully resolved, and judging by a snippy letter Cohen Milstein filed in Manhattan federal court, there could be plenty of acrimony ahead. In a letter on July 24 to U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan, Cohen Milstein accused lawyers at Hausfeld and Scott + Scott of engaging in deception on par with that of former President Richard Nixon. The letter came as Schofield considers Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's motion to serve as co-lead plaintiffs counsel in one piece of the putative class action, which accuses a dozen banks of widespread misconduct in the $5 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market. Cohen Milstein -- who before his unceremonious 2008 departure had counted Hausfeld founder Michael Hausfeld as a name partner -- claimed that the other two firms had refused to turn over information that could cast doubt on their qualifications to represent a potential class of futures traders. On July 27, however, Judge Schofield agreed that Hausfeld and Scott + Scott shouldn't have to answer Cohen Milstein's requests. Michael Hausfeld and Scott + Scott's Christopher Burke have spearheaded the forex litigation since their early 2014 appointment as interim co-lead counsel. At least four banks -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. -- have since agreed to settle for a combined $808.5 million, according to public disclosures. Separately, five banks agreed in May to pay $2.5 billion and pleaded guilty to related criminal charges from the U.S. Department of Justice. Following the JPMorgan settlement in January, the first to be disclosed in the private litigation, several futures traders jumped into the fray for the first time, filing new forex suits. On July 16, Hausfeld and Scott + Scott filed a motion to roll those actions in with the rest of the private litigation, while also seeking to serve as co-lead counsel for the futures traders. That move apparently riled Cohen Milstein, which represents one of the named futures plaintiffs who sued this year. In the July 24 letter, Cohen Milstein managing partner J. Douglas Richards raised questions about Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's credentials for representing a potential class of forex futures traders. According to Mr. Richards, the other two plaintiffs firms argue that they're qualified to lead the futures actions in part because they've already obtained several settlements in the forex litigation. In addition to the four publicly announced deals, Hausfeld and Scott + Scott have also described certain "undisclosed" settlements as favorable results, Mr. Richards wrote in his filing on July 24. Cohen Milstein isn't convinced those undisclosed deals live up to the hype, but says the other firms have rebuffed its request to review the settlement agreements. To drive home its point, Cohen Milstein wrote that the other firms' behavior is "reminiscent" of baseless campaign promises made by former President Richard Nixon to drum up votes from Vietnam War opponents during the 1968 campaign. Nixon infamously claimed during that presidential election to have a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War, when no such plan actually existed. Hausfeld and Scott + Scott, for their part, shot back in a letter of their own on July 27, telling Schofield that they've declined to share the settlement agreements because the final details haven't been worked out. The judge later endorsed the response, denying Cohen Milstein's request for the various settlement agreements. Cohen Milstein will still, however, have a chance to formally oppose Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's attempts to lead the futures cases. Beyond the infighting with other plaintiffs firms, Scott + Scott appears to be reaping benefits from its role in the forex litigation. Recently, the firm announced the hire of former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer senior associate Belinda Hollway, who will open Scott + Scott's first European office in London. Ms. Hollway credited the firm's leadership in the forex litigation as one of the factors that drove her to come on board. KELLBRAN CANDIES: Recalls Caramel Popcorn Products Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- KellBran Candies of Akron, Ohio is recalling KellBran Caramel Popcorn, because it contains undeclared milk product. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Caramel Popcorn was distributed in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, through various retail specialty grocery stores. The product is packaged in 8 oz. bags with expiration dates of 11/30/2015 and 12/31/2015 located on the back of the package. The UPC number 0 96637 50153 9, with Lot Codes 181317 4 for the 11/30/2015 packages, 211830 6 for the 12/31/2015 packages are also located on the back of the package. No illnesses or reactions have been reported to date. During an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that product containing a milk product (butter) was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk in the ingredients. Consumers with questions or concerns may contact the company direct at 330-628-3900 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456163.htm KROGER CO: Recalls Seasoning Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------- The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) said it is recalling Kroger Ground Cinnamon, Kroger Garlic Powder, Kroger Coarse Ground Black Pepper and Kroger Bac'n Buds sold in its retail stores due to possible contamination from Salmonella. A sample of Kroger Garlic Powder from a store in North Augusta, South Carolina was tested by the FDA and found to be contaminated with Salmonella. To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these products. Out of an abundance of caution, the company has recalled all four seasonings produced on the same equipment in the same facility. Stores under the following names in the 31 states where Kroger operates are included in this recall: Kroger, Ralphs, Food 4 Less, Foods Co., Fred Meyer, Fry's, King Soopers, City Market, Smith's, Dillons, Baker's, Gerbes, Jay C, Ruler Foods, Pay Less, Owen's, and Scott's. Kroger has removed the potentially affected items from store shelves and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products through register receipt tape messages and phone calls. Kroger is recalling the following items: Product UPC Codes Size ------- --- ----- ---- Kroger Ground 1111070034 Sell by: May 19 18PS4 18.3 oz Cinnamon Kroger Garlic 1111070039 Sell by: May 18 17PS4 24.7 oz Powder Kroger Coarse 1111070041 Sell by: May 18 18PS4 17.1 oz Ground Black Sell by: May 19 18PS4 Pepper Kroger Bac'n 1111070025 Sell by: May 20 18PS4 12.0 oz Buds Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume them and should return them to a store for a full refund or replacement. Customers who have questions may contact Kroger at 1-800-KROGERS. Kroger, one of the world's largest retailers, employs nearly 400,000 associates who serve customers in 2,626 supermarkets and multi-department stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia under two dozen local banner names including Kroger, City Market, Dillons, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Harris Teeter, Jay C, King Soopers, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's. The company also operates 780 convenience stores, 327 fine jewelry stores, 1,342 supermarket fuel centers and 37 food processing plants in the U.S. Recognized by Forbes as the most generous company in America, Kroger supports hunger relief, breast cancer awareness, the military and their families, and more than 30,000 schools and community organizations. Kroger contributes food and funds equal to 200 million meals a year through more than 100 Feeding America food bank partners. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber's Million Dollar Club. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456188.htm LAMI PRODUCTS: Class Suit Filed Over FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Carol Ostrow, writing for PennRecord.com, reported that a South Carolina employee filed a class action lawsuit against her Pennsylvania-based company doing business in South Carolina and other states, claiming willful employment law infringement in its alleged refusal to pay employees minimum wage and overtime pay from June 2012 to the present. Norlene A. Leake of Anderson County, S.C, sued LAMI Products Inc. and its owners Michael Dion and Larry Dion, all of Huntingdon Valley, Pa., in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 22, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations along with quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Leake was hired by the defendant in or around April 2012. Alleging that LAMI made improper deductions of the merchandisers' recorded hours, the plaintiff states that the suit's purpose is to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, and time worked "off the clock." The suit states that the defendants compensated employees hired as merchandisers only for hours spent in stores, allegedly failing to recognize travel time, administrative duties, and other tasks such as scanning, emailing orders, documenting, and boxing and shipping packages. The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative class, seeks to reclaim monetary, liquidated and treble damages, compensatory back and front pay and benefits, pre- and post- judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and court costs. She is represented by Jason Brown and Zijian Guan of JTB Law Group in Jersey City, N.J. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:15-cv- 03487-LFR. LIFE & MORE: Recalls Fat Burner Gold Capsules Due to Sibutramine ---------------------------------------------------------------- Life & More, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling 783 Bottles from Lot #000185004400 Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules weight loss supplements. The firm was informed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that a sample of Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules was found to contain Sibutramine, desmethylsibutramine, and Phenolphthalein. Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the U.S. market in October 2010 (due to increased risk of seizures, heart attacks, arrhythmia and strokes). Phenolphthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the-counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it is not approved for marketing in the United States. These undeclared ingredients make this product an unapproved new drug for which safety and efficacy have not been established. Products containing Sibutramine pose a threat to consumers because Sibutramine can increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a risk for those with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or stroke. These products may also interact in life threatening ways with other medications a consumer may be taking. Health risks associated with phenolphthalein could include potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use. No illnesses or injuries have been reported to the company to date in connection with this product. Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold weight loss supplement capsules are marketed as a dietary supplement for weight loss. Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules are packaged in aluminum bottles containing 30 gold capsules per bottle and labeled with Lot #000185004400, UPC 859189005005, Expiration 12/17. The products were distributed from January 2012 until July 2015. The product was sold directly to distributors and online to consumers at disclaimer iconwww.akttive.com and shipped to the following states: NV, FL, NY, AZ, MA, NJ, CA, MD, TX, VA and MI. Life & More, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Consumers should not consume Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold weight loss supplement Capsules and should return it immediately to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Life & More, L.L.C. at 01157-300-487-0534 or e-mail info@akttive.com , Monday through Friday from 9:00am - 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration. MAGMA DESIGN: Judge Rules in Insurance Coverage Dispute ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California, San Jose Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case GENESIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC. and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSSCLAIMS, AND THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS, CASE NO. 5:06-CV-05526-EJD (N.D. Cal.) Magma Design Automation, Inc. obtained a $10 million directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policy from Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (ERII) for the period of December 15, 2003 to December 15, 2004. Magma also obtained a first-layer excess D&O liability insurance policy from Genesis Insurance Company (Genesis) for the same policy period. The Genesis policy is a follow form policy that incorporates the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the primary ERII 2003-04 Policy, and had a policy limit of $5 million. After the expiration of the 2003-04 Policy, Magma renewed its $10 million D&O liability insurance policy with ERII for the period of December 15, 2004 to March 30, 2006. Magma did not renew its first-layer excess D&O liability insurance policy with Genesis, but it obtained a first-layer excess insurance policy from National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA for the 2004-2006 period. The National Union policy was a follow form policy, and had a policy limit of $5 million. The 2003-04 policy and the 2004-06 policy each contained a notice of circumstances provision. If during the policy period Magma became aware of circumstances which could give rise to a claim and provided the insurer a written notice of such circumstances, then any claim subsequently arising from the circumstances would be deemed to have been first made during the policy period. In September 2004, Synopsys, Inc. filed an action against Magma alleging patent infringement. The Synopsys action was filed during the 2003-04 policy period, Magma notified ERII and Genesis of the action. Magma's insurance broker, ABD Insurance and Finances Services (ABD), sent a cover letter and a copy of the Synopsys complaint to both ERII and Genesis to serve as a notice of circumstances pursuant to the 2003-04 policy should a future D&O claim arise out of the Synopsys action. Both ERII and Genesis declined coverage. Nearly six months after the expiration of the 2003-04 policy, Magma shareholders filed a securities class action against Magma, and in July 2005, Magma shareholders filed a shareholder derivative action against Magma. ERII concluded that the earlier Synopsys action constituted a notice of circumstances as to the securities actions. ERII invoked coverage under its 2003-04 policy. Genesis, however, disagreed with ERII's treatment of the Synopsys action as a notice of circumstances for the securities actions, and thus denied coverage under its 2003-04 policy. National Union sided with ERII, and thus denied coverage under its 2004-06 policy. In September 2006, Genesis filed an insurance coverage action against defendants Magma and National Union asserting claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract. Magma alleged that the securities actions did not invoke the Genesis 2003-04 policy, and thus Genesis owed no coverage. Magma filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a determination as to whether the Genesis 2003-04 policy or the National Union 2004- 06 policy applied to the securities actions. Magma also filed a third-party complaint against National Union seeking the same determination, and against ERII seeking a declaration as to whether the ERII 2003-04 Policy or the ERII 2004-06 policy applied. ERII answered and counterclaimed for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that the securities actions were covered by either the ERII 2003-04 Policy or the ERII 2004-06 Policy, but not both. Genesis filed a motion for partial summary judgment and magma also filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to National Union. Judge Davila granted Magma's motion for partial summary judgment that its 2004-06 policy applies to the securities actions and that the ERII 2004-06 policy is exhausted. Magma's motion for partial summary judgment that National Union's prior notice exclusion does not bar coverage is granted to the extent this issue pertains to the known loss rule. Magma's motion for partial summary judgment that National Union has breached its policy is denied. Magma's motion for partial summary judgment that National Union must pay its $5 million policy limit, plus interest, on behalf of Magma is denied. Genesis's motion for partial summary judgment that Genesis may recover its settlement payment from National Union is granted. Genesis's motion for partial summary judgment that Genesis is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest is granted. The case is scheduled for a case management conference at 10:00 a.m. on September 3, 2015. The parties shall file a joint case management statement on or before August 27, 2015. A copy of Judge Davila's order dated July 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Evt6k8from Leagle.com Genesis Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge & Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Magma Design Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis M. Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Kim Suzanne Orbeck, Troutman Sanders LLP National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Cross- defendant, represented byMichael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-defendant, represented by Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented by Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Thomas Howard Prouty, Troutman Sanders LLP & Kim Suzanne Orbeck, Troutman Sanders LLP National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party defendant, represented byGlenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Kim Suzanne Orbeck, Troutman Sanders LLP Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-claimant, represented by Lewis Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge & Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP Genesis Insurance Company, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Counter- defendant, represented byGlenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, Cross- claimant, represented by Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP MAKER'S MARK: Judge Tosses Bourbon False Advertising Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Maker's Mark distillery fends off claims of misleading marketing for promoting its Kentucky bourbon as handmade. A federal judge in California dismissed a lawsuit filed by two consumers who claimed they were misled by the bourbon maker's handmade claims on its bottles, known for their red-wax seal. They said the claim enticed them to purchase Maker's Mark instead of a less expensive whiskey. The plaintiffs, Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams, accused Maker's Mark of false advertising, unfair competition and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The suit claimed the process to produce the bourbon features "little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement." The judge, however, accepted the bourbon producer's request to dismiss the suit. "This court finds that 'handmade' cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning literally by hand nor that a reasonable consumer would understand the term to mean no equipment or automated process was used to manufacture the whisky," Judge Houston wrote. The judge added that the plaintiffs "cannot plausibly contend defendant intends to deceive consumers about the nature of its processes when its label clearly describes the process and points consumers to its website." Mona Amini, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said on July 29 they were still reviewing the ruling and declined further comment. Beam Suntory Inc., the parent of Maker's, had maintained the suit was meritless. "We were confident we would prevail, and we are pleased that the California court terminated this matter at an early stage," said company spokesman Clarkson Hine. It was the brand's latest legal victory in fending off claims that it falsely promotes its bourbon. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Florida dismissed a lawsuit by two consumers who accused Maker's Mark of misleading marketing by labeling its bourbon as handmade. Maker's Mark bourbon is produced at a distillery outside Loretto, Kentucky. Maker's has developed a passionate following among bourbon drinkers. The brand created a backlash in 2013 by saying it was cutting the amount of alcohol in each bottle to stretch its whiskey supplies. Producers quickly scrapped the idea. MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Remaining "Johnson" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in the class action lawsuit filed by Matthew B. Johnson, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free" and "regular price." The Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys' fees). Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the original Complaint. On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of contract claims. "We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Against Suit by Lucas and Salerno ------------------------------------------------------------ The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. is defending against the class action lawsuit filed by David Lucas and Eric Salerno, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees. "We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. MID AMERICA APARTMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Schilling" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, recommends the denial of defendants' second motion to dismiss and the granting of plaintiffs' motion for leave. Plaintiffs Jamie C. Schilling and Katelyn Elizabeth Brooks sue their landlord, Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid- America Apartments, L.P. ("MAA), alleging that MAA improperly charged water connection fees in violation of the Texas Water Code. Plaintiffs are former tenants of one of MAA's apartment complexes in Austin, Texas known as Colonial Grand at Canyon Ranch. Schilling and Brooks, as co-tenants were parties to a lease with MAA for a one-year term starting July 7, 2013. The plaintiffs have pled that when they moved into the apartment on July 7, 2013, they paid the $408.71, which included the $15 water connection fee. Plaintiffs contend that Texas apartment owners and landlords are prohibited from charging water connection fees, water utility account activation fees, late fees in excess of 5% of the water utility bill, and other similar surcharges under Chapter 13 of the Texas Water Code and PUC/TCEQ Rules. Plaintiffs for themselves, and on behalf of a proposed class, seek recovery of statutory damages equal to three times the amount of all overcharges, a civil penalty of one month's rent for each class member for each violation, reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and costs of court. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the only plaintiff named was Schilling, who lacked standing to bring the case. Defendants argued that Brooks not Schilling entered into the Reservation Agreement and was charged and paid the $15 fee that is at the heart of the dispute, and therefore Schilling suffered no injury in fact. A week after the motion was filed, Schilling filed her first amended complaint adding Brooks as a plaintiff. Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed the original motion without prejudice. The second motion to dismiss continues to assert that the case should be dismissed because Schilling has no standing, and adds that because he lacks standing, he could not amend his complaint to add Brooks as a plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that defendants' second motion to dismiss be denied and grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint. A copy of Magistrate Judge Austin's report and recommendation dated July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/R86iXdfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, for themselves and all others similarly situated represented by: Britton D. Monts, Esq. THE MONTS FIRM 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: 512-474-6092 Facsimile: 514-692-2981 - and - Stacey V. Reese, Esq. STACEY V. REESE LAW PLLC 815 - A Brazos Street #226 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: 512-212-1423 - and - Jason W. Snell, Esq. THE SNELL LAW FIRM, PLLC The Littlefield Building 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 330 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: 512-477-5291 Facsimile: 512-4775294 Defendants, represented by Artoush Varshosaz -- artoush.varshosaz@klgates.com -- Gregory P. Sapire -- Greg.Sapire@klgates.com -- Justin Roel Chapa -- Thomas K. Schroeter -- thomas.schroeter@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP MIDWEST HEALTH: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "French" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case MELISSA FRENCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST HEALTH, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2625-JAR-KMH (D. Kan.) Midwest Health owns, operates, and/or manages at least forty-two skilled nursing, assisted living, and independent living facilities in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma. The Defendant had a policy of automatically deducting a 30-minute meal break from each shift of six or more hours whether or not a full, uninterrupted meal break was actually taken. During these uncompensated periods, Melissa French and other employees often worked, or were interrupted with work, and were not compensated, subjecting hourly employees to off-the-clock work. Plaintiff brought a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), against defendant, claiming violations of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Plaintiff is joined by nineteen current and former Midwest Health employees from eight different facilities in Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska who have opted in to this lawsuit. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that because defendant automatically deducts a 30-minute meal break from each shift of six or more hours, and she and many employees often work during that period and receive no compensation for said work, the practice is in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification. Plaintiff also moved for the approval of form of notice. Judge Robinson granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for conditional certification; and conditionally certifies plaintiff's collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA: All hourly employees who worked for Defendant's care facilities during the last three years and were subject to the 30-minute automatic meal deduction policy. French is designated as the class representative and plaintiffs' counsel will act as class counsel. Plaintiff's motion to approve a form of notice is denied without prejudice, to be reasserted after the parties have conferred. If an agreement is reached, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice and consent form to the court for approval within 21 days of the court's order. To the extent the parties are unable to reach an agreement, plaintiffs shall file a motion within 21 days of the court's order, to seek approval of the proposed forms, and defendant shall have 14 days to respond to plaintiff's motion. Defendant may, if necessary, submit an alternative proposed notice and consent form with its response. Within 14 days of the court's order, defendant must provide plaintiff a list in electronic and importable format, of the first and last names, last-known addresses, dates of employment, job title, location of employment, and telephone numbers of all members of the putative class. A copy of Judge Robinson's memorandum and order dated July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/1s9u1Sfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC 10601 Mission Road, Suite 100 Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: 913-766-5585 Facsimile: 816-875-5069 - and - Tracey F. George, Esq, Davis George Mook, LLC 1600 Genessee, Ste. 328 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: 816-569-2629 Midwest Health Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by James C. Sullivan -- jsullivan@polsinelli.com -- Latrice Nicole Lee -- lnlee@polsinelli.com -- Robert J. Hingula -- rhingula@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC MOSES LAKE: Recalls Human and Veterinary Sterile Compounded Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moses Lake Professional Pharmacy is voluntarily recalling human and veterinary sterile compounded drugs which are unexpired to the consumer level due to lack of sterility assurance. The company has not received any reports of product contamination or adverse events to date, and is issuing this voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution following a recent inspection which identified an issue with sterility assurance. If there is contamination in products intended to be sterile, patients are at risk of serious infections which may be life threatening. The recalled products were made from 7/21/2014 through 7/21/2015, and dispensed to patients or distributed to physicians for further administering to patients in the states of Arizona, Idaho, Florida, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. All recalled products have a label that includes the pharmacy name and the name of the compounded drug product. The recall does not pertain to any non-sterile compounded medications prepared by the pharmacy or to products compounded after July 21, 2015. All unexpired lots of the following sterile compounded products are subject to the recall: --- ALPROSTADIL 20 MCG/ML INJ SOLN --- ALPROSTADIL 5 MCG/ML INJ SOLN --- ALPROSTADIL 40 MCG/ML INJECTABLE --- ALPROSTADIL/PROCAINE 20 MCG/0.1%/ML INJECTABLE --- ALPROSTADIL/PROCAINE 40 MCG/0.1%/ML INJECTABLE --- B1/B2/B3/B5/B12/LIDOCAINE/ISOLEUCINE/METHIONINE/CHOLINE/ INOSITOL 50/5/50/5/1/10/25/8/17/17MG/ML INJECTABLE --- BUPRENORPHINE MULTIDOSE VIAL 0.3MG/ML INJ SOLN --- CALM ME VITAMIN COCKTAIL, MAGNESIUM, COMPOUNDED B COMPLEX INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN INJECTION 4000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 1000UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 10,000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 175 UNITS/SYRINGE W METHYLCOBALAMIN 175 UNITS/1.5MG INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 200UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 2000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 500UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 5000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 150 UNITS/SYRINGE 150 UNITS/0.150ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 175 UNITS/SYRINGE 175 UNITS/0.175ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 200 UNITS/SYRINGE 200 UNITS/0.2ML INJECTABLE --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 250 UNITS/SYRINGE 250 UNITS/0.25ML INJECTABLE --- CYANOCOBALAMIN MDV (COMPOUNDED) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE --- CYCLOSPORIN DROPS 1% OPHTHAMLIC --- DEXPANTHENOL 250MG/ML INJECTABLE --- DIHYDROERGOTAMINE MESYLATE 1MG/ML INJECTABLE> DMPS (DIMERCAPTO-PROPANESULFONIC NA (SINGLE USE ONLY) 50MG/ML INJECTABLE --- EDETATE CALCIUM DISODIUM (SINGLE USE ONLY) 300MG/ML INJECTABLE --- ESTRADIOL 20MG/ML INJECTABLE --- ESTRADIOL 3MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 6MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 9MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 12MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 12.5MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 15MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 18MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 20MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 25MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 30MG PELLET --- ESTRADIOL 75MG PELLET --- ETHYL ALCOHOL 200 PROOF (STERILE FOR INJECTION) 100% INJECTABLE --- FOLIC ACID 10MG/ML INJECTABLE --- GLUTATHIONE MDV 200MG/ML INJECTABLE --- GLUTATHIONE (L) 75/ML INJECTABLE --- GLYCOPYRROLATE 0.2 MG/ML INJ SOLN --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN (PRESERVATIVE FREE) UNIT DOSE SYRINGES 1.5MG/0.25ML INJECTABLE --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN (COMPOUNDED) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN MULTIDOSE VIAL 5MG/ML INJECTABLE --- HYDROXYCOBALAMINE/METHYLCOBALAMINE PF UNIT DOSE 1.5/1.5MG/.25ML INJECTABLE --- HYDROXYPROGESTERONE CAPROATE OIL 250MG/ML INJECTABLE --- MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE INJECTION VEHICLE 200MG/ML --- METHIONINE/CHOLINE/INOSITOL 25/50/50MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN 10MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN 15MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 1MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 2MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 5MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE PREFILLED 1MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE PREFILLED 15MG/ML INJECTABLE --- METHYLCOBALAMIN/HYDROXOCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE UNIT DOSE SYRINGES 2.5/0.5MG/ML INJECTABLE --- PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE 30MG/1MG/ML INJECTABLE --- PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/ATROPINE/PROSTAGLADIN PER ML 30MG/2MG/0.1MG/20MCG INJECTABLE --- PROCAINE MDV 1% INJECTABLE --- PROGESTERONE 50MG PELLET --- PROGESTERONE 100MG PELLET --- PROGESTERONE 200MG PELLET --- PYRIDOXINE HCL 100MG/ML INJECTABLE --- SERMORELIN/GHRP-6/GHRP-2 9/5.4/5.4MG/9ML INJECTABLE --- SERMORELIN/GHRP-6/GHRP-2 9/9/9MG/9ML INJECTABLE --- SODIUM TETRADECYL SULFATE 3% INJECTABLE --- TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE (COMPOUNDED) 200MG/ML INJECTABLE --- TESTOSTERONE 25MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 50MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 60MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 70MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 76MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 80MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 90MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 100MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 106MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 110MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 112MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 115MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 116MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 120MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 125MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 130MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 150MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE 200MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE/ANASTROZOLE 200/13MG PELLET --- TESTOSTERONE/ANASTROZOLE 120/8MG PELLET --- THIAMIN/RIBOFLAVIN/NIACIN/PYRIDOXINE/BIOTIN/FOLIC ACID/ --- METHYLCOBALAMIN 50MG/50MG/50MG/50MG/400MCG/800MCG/500MCG/5ML SOLUTION --- TRIMIX 30MG/2MG/20MCG INJECTABLE --- TRIMIX 40MG/2MG/40MCG/ML INJECTABLE --- TRIMIX 15MG/.5MG/5MCG/ML INJECTABLE --- TRIMIX 20MG/1MG/20MCG/ML INJECTABLE --- VITAMIN A/VITAMIN C/VITAMIN E/LIPOIC ACID/COQ10 5000U/500MG/200U/200MG/30MG/5ML SUSPENSION --- VITAMIN B-COMPLEX B1/B3/B2/B5/B6/B12 100/100/2/2/2/3MG/ML INJECTABLE --- VITAMIN D3 OIL 400,000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE --- VITAMIN D3 OIL 50,000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE The pharmacy has begun notifying its patients by telephone, fax, electronic mail and/or regular mail of this recall. Users or recipients of these products should immediately discontinue use and return the recalled unexpired products. To return product or request assistance related to this recall, users should call 509-764-2314, Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 1 to 5:30 p.m. PDT.; Consumers should contact their physician or health care provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking these drug products. Adverse reactions experienced with the use of human drugs may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit a report Online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and mail to address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events involving animals can be reported to the FDA on Form FDA 1932a. FORM FDA 1932a can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/An imalDrugForms/ucm048817.pdf It is preaddressed and pre-postage paid, and can be filled and submitted via US Mail. Call the Center for Veterinary Medicine: 1-888-FDA-VETS. Leave your name, address, phone number, and the brand name of the drug involved. Ask to have a Form FDA 1932a sent to you. "We are fully cooperating with the FDA and we regret any impact this voluntary recall may have on our patients, and patient safety is our highest priority", said Shawn Needham, R.Ph., owner and pharmacist. MOUNTAINS RECREATION: Appellate Court Trashed Violator's Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case DANNY EVERETT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MOUNTAINS RECREATION AND CONSERVANCY AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B254753 (Cal. Ct. App.) The Mountains Recreation and Conservancy Authority (MRCA) is a public entity formed by a joint exercise of powers agreement between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a public agency within the state's Natural Resources Agency, and two local recreation and park districts, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. MRCA adopted an ordinance establishing rules, regulations and punishments for the parklands under its control. MRCA regularly amended its ordinance and in 2010, MRCA adopted the Mountains Recreation and Conservancy Authority Park Ordinance, which governs such matters as park hours, smoking and fire restrictions, and the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. On January 16, 2011, one of MRCA's automated video camera system recorded a vehicle registered to Danny Everett failing to stop at a stop sign on a roadway in a parkland property under MRCA's control. A MRCA park ranger issued and mailed an administrative citation to Everett. Everett paid the administrative penalty of $175 indicated on the administrative citation, and requested an administrative hearing before MRCA to contest the citation. On April 7, 2011, a MRCA administrative officer denied Everett's contest of the citation. Everett filed a complaint, alleging three causes of action: -- declaratory relief; -- injunctive relief; and -- petition for writ of mandate. Everett's complaint alleged that the stop sign violation for which MRCA cited him as well as the other members of the putative class occurred on a highway as defined by Vehicle Code section 360, that Vehicle Code section 21 makes the provision of the Vehicle Code uniformly applicable to all highways located in California, that Vehicle Code section 21455.5 governs automated traffic enforcement systems, and that MRCA failed to comply with the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.5 in establishing its automated video camera traffic enforcement system. MRCA filed a demurrer to Everett's complaint arguing, among other legal issues, that the Public Resources Code, not the Vehicle Code, gives MRCA the authority to regulate vehicle traffic within the parklands under its control. The court entered a minute order sustaining MRCA's demurrer to Everett's complaint without leave to amend. On January 9, 2014, the court signed and entered an order of dismissal of Everett's action. Everett filed a timely notice of appeal. Presiding Justice Bigelow affirmed the trial court's judgment in an unpublished opinion dated July 15, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://goo.gl/y9XjP7from Leagle.com. For Plaintiffs and Appellants: David R. Greifinger, Esq. Law Offices of David R. Greifinger 1801 Ocean Park Blvd Apt 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: 310-452-7923 Facsimile: 310-450-4715 - and - Howard A. Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein Legal Services 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: 323-370-6246 Facsimile: 323-795-2650 - and - Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Mike Arias, Esq. Arnold Wang, Esq. Arias, Ozzello & Gignac 14th Floor 6701 Center Dr. W Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: 310-670-1600 Thomas W. Casparian -- tcasparian@gilchristrutter.com -- Yen N. Hope -- yhope@gilchristrutter.com -- at Gilchrist & Rutter, for Defendant and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight panel consists of Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow and Justices Madeleine Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes. NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Nature's Variety has announced a voluntary recall of their Instinct(R) Raw Chicken Formula for dogs with a "Best By" date of 04/27/16 because these products may be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has the symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. The affected products are limited to the Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Frozen Diets packaged in the following forms: --- UPC# 769949611431 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Bites for Dogs 4 lb.; Best By 04/27/16 --- UPC# 769949611448 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Bites for Dogs 7 lb.; Best By 04/27/16 --- UPC# 769949611486 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Patties for Dogs 6 lb.; Best By 04/27/16 The "Best By" date is located on the back of the package below the seal. The affected product was distributed through retail stores in the United States and limited distribution in Canada. No other Nature's Variety products are affected. No illnesses have been reported to date. Even though no illnesses have been reported, consumers should follow the Simple Handling Tips published on the Nature's Variety package when disposing of the affected product. Nature's Variety became aware of a potential issue after receiving notification from the FDA that a routine surveillance sample of seven pound Instinct Raw Chicken Bites for dogs tested positive for Salmonella. Consumers feeding the affected product should discontinue use and monitor their pet's health, and contact their veterinarian if they have concerns. Consumers who have purchased one of the above products can obtain a full refund or exchange by either returning the product in its original packaging or bringing a proof of purchase back to their retailer. Consumers with additional questions can call our Consumer Relations team at 888-519-7387 from 8 am to 7 pm Central time, 7 days a week during the recall. Or, consumers can email Nature's Variety directly via cservice@naturesvariety.com. Reed Howlett, Chief Executive Officer of Nature's Variety, stated, "At Nature's Variety we take quality and safety very seriously. We believe that under all circumstances, health and safety comes first, and we are committed to providing the best possible nutrition for pets." Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455924.htm NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates ADA, Florida Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nautica Retail USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and VF Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-22231-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq. Louis I. Mussman, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN PA 6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 891-1322 Facsimile: (305) 891-4512 E-mail: brian@kumussman.com louis@kumussman.com NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Revives Shoppers' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Diane Pamela Wood of the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reverses the district court's judgment and remanded the case of HILARY REMIJAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-3122 (7th Cir.) In mid-December 2013, Neiman Marcus learned that fraudulent charges had shown up on the credit cards of some of its customers. Nine days later, it publicly disclosed the data breach and sent individual notifications to the customers who had incurred fraudulent charges. The company also posted updates on its website. Those messages confirmed several aspects of the attack, some card numbers had been exposed to the malware, but other sensitive information such as social security numbers and birth dates had not been compromised, the malware attempted to collect card data between July 16, 2013, and October 30, 2013, 350,000 cards were potentially exposed, and 9,200 of those 350,000 cards were known to have been used fraudulently. The disclosures prompted the filing of a number of class-action complaints. They were consolidated in a First Amended Complaint filed on June 2, 2014, by Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie Farnoush, and Joanne Kao. They sought to represent themselves and the approximately 350,000 other customers whose data may have been hacked. The complaint relies on a number of theories for relief: negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive business practices, invasion of privacy, and violation of multiple state data breach laws. It raises claims that exceed $5,000,000, and minimal diversity of citizenship exists, because Remijas is a citizen of Illinois, Frank is a citizen of New York, and Farnoush and Kao are citizens of California, while the Neiman Marcus Group LLC, once ownership is traced through several intermediary LLCs, is owned by NM Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Neiman Marcus moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. The district judge granted the motion exclusively on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal nine days later. Chief Judge reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the suit for further proceedings. A copy of Chief Judge Wood's opinion dated July 20, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/kfjD0afrom Leagle.com. The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Diane Pamela Woods and Circuit Judges Michael Stephen Kanne and Terrence T. Evans. * * * According to Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015: -- Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re- file a complaint. -- Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. -- Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. -- Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to Shields. -- Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury. On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. -- Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other claims in connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card. On March 9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties. NEIMAN MARCUS: Hearing Held on Bid for Catalyst Attorneys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a hearing on the motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company was set for June 18, 2015, in the Tanguilig action. On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed "related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court judge. On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who were employed between December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our Mandatory Arbitration Agreement). Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision. Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has been fully briefed, and oral argument was held on June 9, 2015. The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class action settlement was granted. Notwithstanding the appeal, the trial court decided to set certain civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April 1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as required by California law. After several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of Appeal. Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on the appeals is underway, but no date has been set for oral argument. In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26, 2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company. A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. Briefing was underway, and the hearing on the motion was set for June 18, 2015. "We will continue to vigorously contest this motion," the Company said. "Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms. Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms. Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with the settlement. We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter, and our recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances," the Company said. NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Filed Notice to Appeal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that Lina Rubenstein has filed a notice to appeal the court's ruling in her class action lawsuit. On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges that the Company has violated various California consumer protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms. Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate information to support its comparative pricing labels. "On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California," the Company said. "On October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted on December 12, 2014." In its order dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first amended complaint on December 22, 2014. "On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint, which she filed on March 17, 2015," the Company said. "On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice to appeal the court's ruling," the Company added. NEIMAN MARCUS: Marney Zaslav Filed Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a putative class action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav seeks monetary relief and alleges that she and other similarly situated individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from minimum wage requirements instead of as employees and, therefore, were not provided with proper compensation under the New York Labor Law. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. NEW YORK, NY: Says Child Welfare System Suit Counterproductive -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rex Brown, writing for NY Daily News, reported that public advocate Letitia James filed a class-action lawsuit alleging both the city and state condemn foster children to a broken child welfare system. The papers filed in Manhattan Federal Court name 10 foster children who she said were caught in "one of the most dangerous foster care systems in the country." "Lives are being ruined during our children's most formative years, and our legal action seeks to put an end to this injustice," James said. The city Administration for Children's Services said the suit was counterproductive. "Litigation will not achieve meaningful long-lasting improvements to the well-being of children in foster care and could impede ACS and its partner agencies from implementing systemic reform," a spokeswoman said. NEW YORK, NY: To Allow Visits to Grave Sites on Hart Island ----------------------------------------------------------- Corey Kilgannon, writing for The New York Times, reported that in a major policy shift in the way New York runs its potter's field for the burial of unclaimed bodies, the city has settled a lawsuit and will allow relatives to visit grave sites on Hart Island, off City Island in the Bronx. The city's Department of Correction, which runs burial operations on Hart Island, has settled a class-action lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of relatives of people buried there. Both sides announced the settlement, calling it historic. The correction commissioner, Joseph Ponte, said the deal would help the department "enable access to the cemetery on Hart Island in a compassionate and safe manner." "We look forward to implementing this historic settlement," Mr. Ponte continued, "and pledge to work closely with the N.Y.C.L.U. in order to make the compassionate access it envisions a reality." Under the settlement, the city will run monthly visits for relatives and their guests, said Christopher Dunn, a lawyer with the civil liberties organization who was the lead counsel in the case. The Correction Department takes inmates from Rikers Island to the island by bus and ferry to bury the deceased, including newborn children, in mass graves. In recent years, the department has conducted regular monthly visits, one weekday a month for relatives to gather at a memorial area on the island at a distance from the burial areas. But they were barred by officials from visiting the grave sites, which are unmarked, though the names and location of the dead are recorded in a city database. Those weekday trips will continue, but the settlement also adds monthly weekend visits for relatives, each of whom may bring along up to four people who do not need to be relatives. The city will offer two round-trip ferry rides -- with space for a total of 50 passengers -- starting on July 19, to transport visitors to the island, and then escort them to grave sites. The 101-acre island has unceremoniously received the city's homeless, poor, stillborn and other unclaimed bodies, delivered by truck and ferry from borough morgues. The city buries up to 1,500 bodies a year, stacked in pine boxes in long trenches. Correction Department officials have long kept tight restrictions on burial information and have emphasized the need to keep the island restricted because of dangerous conditions, security concerns regarding the inmate laborers and the absence of amenities and utilities. The settlement goes into detail in listing possible relatives who are allowed to visit, including parents, stepsiblings, second cousins, legal guardians and domestic partners. It specifies what visitors shall be permitted to leave as mementos at the grave sites, including flowers (no vases), small stuffed animals, small flags and blankets. Mr. Dunn said that three people, from two families, were the lead plaintiffs in the suit, and that none wished to comment. He said he believed the settlement would eventually lead to the burial areas being opened to the public. "People will start visiting grave sites this month and more people will want to go, and more people will understand that the Department of Corrections running a cemetery is a bad idea," he said. In fact, a bill pending in the City Council would transfer jurisdiction over the island to the city's parks department. The lead sponsor, Councilwoman Elizabeth S. Crowley, a Democrat from Queens, said a hearing on the bill would be held in the fall. Saying Hart Island could be "a place schoolkids can take school trips to," Ms. Crowley said she envisioned the island's becoming an attraction in much the same way Governors Island has turned into a popular destination. "The Department of Correction doesn't want it," she said. "In unofficial conversations, they've said they'd be happy to give it to another city agency." Advocates for opening up Hart Island argue that personnel hired and trained to oversee the city's jail system are ill equipped to run a cemetery and interact with bereaved loved ones. They also argue that the rules stigmatize the visiting process, with relatives of the dead being treated as prison visitors rather than mourners by being forced to follow many of the same rules that apply at Rikers, including a ban on cameras and phones. The settlement suggests that Correction Department officials may have more discretion, stating that officials are permitted to search visitors and "may require visitors to surrender electronic devices." The settlement also stipulates that the officials "maintain a respectful distance while visitors are present at a grave site consistent with legitimate security concerns." Melinda Hunt, an advocate for easing the restrictions on Hart Island, called some aspects of the settlement disappointing, such as the city's right to require relatives to present proof of their relationship to the deceased. The larger problem, she said, is that the burial system remains in control of jail officials and guards. "The city has to review its 19th-century burial process." Still, she said, the settlement was "another step to opening Hart Island." "We're not at the finish line," she added, "but we're farther along." PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 New Trial Date for Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pain Therapeutics (NASDAQ: PTIE) disclosed the following: As previously disclosed, on December 2, 2011, a securities-related purported class action was filed against Pain Therapeutics, Inc. and its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, or the Court. This action, titled KB Partners I, L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and Peter S. Roddy, was scheduled for trial to occur on July 7, 2015 through July 9, 2015 and continue on July 13, 2015 to July 14, 2015. On July 7, 2015, the Court set a new trial date of March 2017. The Company states: "We continue to believe we have substantial defenses in this matter. As with any litigation proceeding, we cannot predict with certainty the eventual outcome of this matter." PANASONIC CORP: Loses Bid to Remove Judge in Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a New Jersey judge accused of pro-plaintiff bias in issuing a $94,000 sanction will remain assigned to a discrimination suit against Panasonic by three current and former employees, including an assistant general counsel, after the state Supreme Court declined to hear the issue. In a July 20 order, the court denied Panasonic's motions for oral argument and leave to appeal in connection with Essex County Superior Court Judge Christine Farrington's refusal to disqualify herself from Cruz v. Panasonic. Panasonic sought Judge Farrington's removal based on her alleged partiality, the plaintiffs claimed, pointing to her imposition of a $94,000-plus sanction on the Chatham firm of Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, which also represents Panasonic, for violating ethics rules, according to court documents. Panasonic alleged in court papers that Farrington prejudged motions in favor of the plaintiffs, made biased statements on the record and repeatedly ignored controlling legal precedent to rule in plaintiffs' favor. Cruz is a race and sex discrimination case brought by two current employees, Sandra Karriem and Marilyn Joseph, and one former employee, Glorina Williams Cruz. Ms. Karriem is an assistant general counsel for the consumer electronics company, whose U.S. operations are based in Newark. According to court documents, the sanctions were imposed over Nukk-Freeman & Cerra's handling of allegedly privileged materials that Cruz, who is African-American, emailed to a lawyer with whom she consulted after she was allegedly passed over for a promotion to vice president of human resources, a position that went to a white man she claims was less qualified. The emails were sent in September 2012 directly to the personal email address of lawyer Randy Davenport of Piscataway, from Cruz's work email account, which she was accessing remotely because she was then out on a temporary disability leave, according to court documents. The materials she sent Davenport included executive compensation decisions, another employee's performance review, bonus payments to an executive and communications regarding promotions and reassignments of other Panasonic employees, according to court documents. Ms. Cruz claimed in court documents that within hours of sending the messages, she recalled them in an attempt to preserve the confidentiality of what she saw as communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. She subsequently retained Smith Mullin of Montclair to file suit. In February 2014, two of the emails were inadvertently produced during discovery, and last July, one of them was used to question Panasonic CEO Joseph Taylor during his deposition, according to court documents. Smith Mullin claimed it became aware of the inadvertent disclosure shortly after, according to court documents. Panasonic began an in-house investigation a few days later and learned that Ms. Cruz had sent Davenport about 20 emails in total, which it reviewed with outside counsel at Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, court documents said. At least seven of the emails "communicated [Cruz's] thoughts and conclusions regarding the significance of the documents relative to her potential claims," Judge Farrington said in an opinion based on an in camera review she conducted after the plaintiffs claimed the emails were privileged and sought Nukk-Freeman & Cerra's disqualification on that basis. Two days after Panasonic's review of the emails, on Aug. 1, 2014, Smith Mullin notified Nukk-Freeman & Cerra that the emails were privileged, claimed it was not previously aware of their existence and demanded they be turned over, according to court documents. Panasonic claimed it did not know Ms. Cruz had consulted a lawyer before Smith Mullin or that the emails were privileged, according to court documents. Panasonic's Aug. 4 response to Smith Mullin asked for the lawyer's name and the basis for the assertion of privilege, saying nothing in the messages or documents evidenced a relationship with an attorney. Smith Mullin's Aug. 5 reply said Ms. Cruz communicated with Davenport to obtain legal advice, and no further explanation was needed for Panasonic to comply with the law and ethics rules. Nukk-Freeman & Cerra did not hand over the emails but subpoenaed Davenport and tried to depose Cruz about her communications with him, according to court documents. Judge Farrington denied the motion to disqualify Nukk-Freeman & Cerra last Oct. 10, and found that Ms. Cruz did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the emails and waived any privilege by using company email, contrary to Panasonic policy regarding private use. Nevertheless, Judge Farrington found a colorable claim of privilege and said Nukk-Freeman & Cerra should have realized the emails were attorney-client communications because Davenport's name had come up months earlier in connection with Ms. Cruz. Instead, Nukk-Freeman & Cerra concealed its investigation, subpoenaed Davenport and failed to produce copies of the emails until just before oral argument on the motion, Judge Farrington said. Judge Farrington held that Nukk-Freeman & Cerra breached Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b), which requires lawyers to cease reading documents that reasonably appear to have been sent by mistake, and to return them. Judge Farrington sanctioned Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, requiring it to pay the plaintiffs roughly $94,000 in legal fees. Panasonic filed its recusal motion Dec. 14, 2014, which Farrington denied Feb. 6. Ruling from the bench, she claimed "no bias for or against either party or either party's attorneys," and said her rulings were based on her understanding of the law and rules of evidence. Panasonic then asked the Appellate Division for leave to appeal, arguing in court documents that Farrington's holding gave short shrift to its motion and failed to address its arguments, which were based on actual bias and the appearance of bias to a reasonable observer. Panasonic also argued that Judge Farrington's attack on Mr. Taylor's credibility, and her statements criticizing the veracity and integrity of the company's counsel, created an appearance of bias. Smith Mullin argued that a string of adverse rulings doesn't amount to bias, and that comments on the record disapproving of a party's or lawyer's position "never provide a basis for recusal unless such comments reflect deep-seated bias or antagonism toward a client," according to court documents. Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez and Harry Carroll denied leave in April, after which Panasonic moved for leave to appeal and for oral argument before the state Supreme Court. The court denied the motions without explanation. "We understood at the outset that the Supreme Court rarely intervenes at this stage of an ongoing case," but "felt it was important to establish, on the record, some of the instances where the judge's decisions limited our ability to best represent our client," Nukk-Freeman & Cerra managing partner Kerrie Heslin said in a statement. "We look forward to presenting facts that will clearly establish the allegations against Panasonic are entirely unfounded," Ms. Heslin added. "Panasonic is an employer with a culture of respect and inclusion, and has strict policies in place that prohibit any form of discrimination or retaliation." Nancy Erika Smith of Smith Mullin, reached by phone, said her firm is "ready to try the case and move beyond the obstruction of seven appeals," and characterized Panasonic's reaction to the sanction as a "temper tantrum." "The delay and obstruction has been extraordinary," Ms. Smith said, adding that she expects to conclude discovery this fall and move to trial within the next six months. Michael Griffinger of Gibbons in Newark, who also represents Panasonic, deferred comment to the company. Panasonic spokesman Jim Reilly declined to comment. PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Salvatore Chimenti, Daniel Leyva and David Maldonado, and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Department Corrections (DOC); John Wetzel, Secretary of the (DOC); Paul Noel, Chief Medical Director, Pennsylvania DOC; Christopher Oppman, Director, Bureau of Health Care Services, DOC; Kephart, Dr., Medical Director at SCI Smithfield, DOC; William Dreibelbis, Correctional Health Care Administrator, SCI Smithfield, DOC; Weiner, Dr., Medical Director, SCI Graterford; Joseph C. Korszniak, Correctional Health Care Administrator, SCI Graterford; Correct Care Solutions (CCS); Nicholas Scharff, Dr., Medical Director, CCS; Andrew Dancha, Regional Medical Director, CCS; John Hochberg, Dr., Assistant Medical Director, CCS; Wexford Health Sources, Inc.; and Thomas Lehman, Dr., Medical Director, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03333-JP (E.D. Pa., June 12, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angus R. Love, Esq. Su Ming Yeh, Esq. PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch St., Suite 304S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-2966 Facsimile: (215) 925-5337 E-mail: alove@pailp.org smyeh@pailp.org - and - David Rudovsky, Esq. KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP The Cast Iron Bldg., Suite 501 South 718 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 Facsimile: (215) 925-5365 E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com - and - Stephen D. Brown, Esq. DECHERT LLP 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994-2240 Facsimile: (215) 655-2240 E-mail: stephen.brown@dechert.com PETROBAS: Pomerantz LLP Wins Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- On behalf of Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. and a putative class of investors, Pomerantz LLP has secured a significant victory against Brazil's oil conglomerate Petr leo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras. The Company, together with a slew of Individual Defendants, is alleged to have perpetrated Brazil's biggest graft and money- laundering scandal to date. Stemming well over a decade, Petrobras and the Individual Defendants stand accused of colluding to inflate bids, with Petrobras executives taking bribes and politicians sharing in the proceeds. The bribery and money- laundering scheme is estimated to have diverted tens of billions of dollars from Petrobras' coffers. Pomerantz defeated Defendants' many challenges to its securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, paving the way to discovery and prosecution of the case. Pomerantz also secured a victory against the underwriters of several multi-billion dollar offerings conducted on behalf of Petrobras during the class period, alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Petrobras securities between January 22, 2010 and March 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Petr leo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras operates as an integrated oil and gas company in Brazil and internationally. Its Exploration and Production segment is engaged in the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas; sale and transfer of crude oil in domestic and foreign markets; and sale of oil products produced at natural gas processing plants. 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: (1) the Company overstated its property, plant, and equipment assets on its balance sheet by overpricing contracts to certain companies relating to its refineries and operations and accepting kickbacks from construction companies approved for those contracts; (2) the Company was receiving multi-billion dollar bribes from third party contractors to secure contracts from Petrobras; (3) the Company was in violation of its own Code of Ethics as its employees and executives were routinely accepting bribes from certain construction companies; (4) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Petrobras' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. At its height in 2009, Petrobras was the world's fifth largest company, with a market capitalization of $310 billion. Now, amid the rampant money-laundering and kickback scheme, Petrobras' market capitalization is less than $55 billion. Jeremy Lieberman, Partner at Pomerantz LLP commented: "We are pleased with the Court's decision, which acknowledged the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleadings against Defendants. The duration and scope of the fraud perpetrated by Petrobras and the Individual Defendants is unprecedented. We look forward to aggressively litigating our case and working to achieve a substantial recovery for harmed shareholders--the true victims of Defendants' fraud." The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. PHILIP MORRIS: App. Court Ruled on "Skolnick" Smoking Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert M. Gross of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District ruled on the case PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellants, v. BEATRICE SKOLNICK, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF LEO SKOLNICK, deceased, Appellee, NO. 4D13-4696 (Fla. Dist. App.) Beatrice Skolnick joined hundreds of plaintiffs in a New York class action lawsuit (Hicksville Action) against Verizon Communications Inc. and other defendants responsible for the operation of the Sylvania Plant, which was located just 500 meters from Beatrice and Leo Skolnick's Westbury home. The complaint alleged the facility emitted toxins into the surrounding environment located in Hicksville, New York, which contaminated the air, soil, surface water and ground water in the surrounding communities. Beatrice recovered compensatory damages from appellants Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The jury found for the defendants on claims of fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. The class action settled for $10,400,000, with Beatrice receiving a $60,000 share. Beatrice executed a settlement agreement, containing a release and covenant not to sue concurrent tortfeasors, where the injury at issue was her husband's lung cancer. However, under New York law, the release and covenant not to sue do not bar the intentional tort claims of fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. Beatrice cross- appealed from the defense verdict on the intentional tort counts. Prior to trial, the defendants moved for summary judgment on their affirmative defense that Beatrice's tobacco claims were barred by the settlement agreement not to sue since Beatrice was suing "other tortfeasors" for the same loss or injury alleged in the Hicksville Actions. The defendants argued that because the settlement agreement was defined to include Beatrice's claim for Leo's lung cancer and death, the covenant not to sue barred her from suing any other tortfeasors, even if those tortfeasors were unknown to her at the time she entered into the settlement agreement. The trial court entered a written order denying the summary judgment motion. Judge Gross reversed the judgment for the plaintiff on the strict liability and negligence counts, and remanded to the circuit court for the entry of judgment for the defendants. On the cross-appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment for the defendants on the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy counts, and remanded for a new trial. A copy of Judge Gross's opinion dated July 15, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/uQxDjBfrom Leagle.com. Amir C. Tayrani -- atayrani@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; Joseph H. Lang, Jr. -- jlang@cfjblaw.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.; Peter M. Henk -- phenk@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., for appellant, Philip Morris USA, Inc. Gregory G. Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day, for appellant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company David J. Sales -- at David J. Sales, P.A.; John S. Mills -- at The Mills Firm, P.A.; Jonathan R. Gdanski -- jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com -- at Schlessinger Law Offices, P.A., for appellee The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District panel consists of Chief Judge Cory J. Ciklin and Judges W. Matthew Stevenson and Robert M. Gross. QUEENSLAND: Abandon Suit Defense, Flood Victims Urge ---------------------------------------------------- Joel Gould, writing for The Queensland Times, reported that the multi-billion dollar class action by 2011 flood victims against the State should be settled out of court by the Queensland Government before it gets to trial. That is the view of Cr Paul Tully who said the government should stick to its word from three years ago and be a model litigant in the matter. Cr Tully also has the backing of 73-year-old flood victim Frank Beaumont who was denied an insurance payout because his insurance company quibbled over the definition of the word 'flood'. The class action has been launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn against Seqwater, Sun Water and the State of Queensland on behalf of 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane plaintiffs who lost homes and businesses in the 2011 floods. The hearing has been set down for the Supreme Court of NSW in Sydney last July 18, 2016. "The former Labor Government and the LNP both said in 2012 that they would act as model litigants in this matter," Cr Tully said. "A lot of people are suffering and still haven't got back to their homes and I urge the government to settle the claim prior to the hearing. "That would need goodwill on both sides, but we don't want taxpayer money being wasted to lose the case and have to pay out even more money. "This would be an appropriate case, based on the material to be exchanged between the parties over the next 12 months, for the government to consider a settlement." An independent investigation by Maurice Blackburn, which took over a year to complete, concluded that the flooding of a large number of properties downriver from Wivenhoe Dam in 2011 would not have occurred had the dam been operated to the standard expected of a reasonably competent dam operator. Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk told the QT any decision about a settlement would be made by Crown Law and that she was not able to comment. Mr Beaumont, who was left with just a roof and three walls after the 2011 floods destroyed his Goodna home, has backed Cr Tully's call. His experience mirrors that of many in the community. "I'm a pensioner and I had to go back to part-time work because we didn't get any insurance," he said. "We were insured but the insurance company said they didn't cover 'floods'. "It is my aspiration that the government would be prepared to settle out of court. "I think there is a better chance of that happening under the Labor Party, but if they wait until July and fight it that will just be putting us through more pain. "It will also cost millions of dollars for lawyers if they do fight it." Mr Beaumont got a flood victim payment from the government but because he and his family lost everything in their house they had to replace household items such as furniture and white goods, and find accommodation for six months. The payment did not cover costs and Mr Beaumont said the family had to borrow money they didn't have to rebuild their home. "We had to not just rebuild our house. We had to rebuild our lives," he said The class action case is being heard in NSW because Queensland does not allow for class action suits in its courts. The initial plaintiff lived in NSW and had a flooded property in Brisbane, entitling them to launch the initial action in NSW. "That enabled 4500 plaintiffs in Ipswich and Brisbane to join in the multi-billion dollar class action," Cr Tully said. "Goodna was the worst affected suburb in the 2011 flood with over 600 properties flooded which included homes and businesses." "There were a lot of people who were denied insurance because of technicalities under the definition of 'flood' in their insurance policies who are still anxiously awaiting the outcome of the class action." Cr Tully's own home was flooded in the 2011 floods and he is a plaintiff in the case against the State. RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Judge Certifies Class in Provigil Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has certified a class of direct purchasers of the drug Provigil in their antitrust case against generic drug makers Ranbaxy Laboratories and Mylan Pharmaceuticals. U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class status to direct purchaser plaintiffs who claimed the drug companies delayed the introduction of a generic version of the wakefulness drug Provigil into the market. A $512 million settlement in the case was reached in April between the plaintiffs and former defendants Cephalon Inc. and generic drug makers Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. Mylan and Ranbaxy were not part of that settlement, however. The litigation surrounds reverse-payment settlements, paid out in 2005 and 2006 between Cephalon and each of the generic manufacturers, which are alleged to be anti-competitive for delaying the market entry of generic Provigil, according to Judge Goldberg's memorandum. Judge Goldberg said the issues presented in the case, paired with the number of plaintiffs, favored class status. "The complexity and extensive history of this case, the expansive discovery conducted, and the geographic dispersion of the parties all favor class treatment," Judge Goldberg said. "While some factors weigh in defendants' favor, I find those factors less compelling. Accordingly, plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties are sufficiently numerous so as to make joinder impracticable." Additionally, Judge Goldberg reasoned that class status was the most appropriate way to serve judicial economy, given the exhaustive discovery in the litigation. The class itself, consisting of 22 members, was defined as "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at any time during the period from June 24, 2006, through Aug. 31, 2012," according to Judge Goldberg. The class members alleged that "Cephalon entered into a conspiracy with each of its generic competitors to restrain trade, and engineered a larger, overall conspiracy in restraint of trade and a scheme to monopolize the United States market for modafinil. The purpose and effect of these conspiracies and scheme were to prevent and delay generic competition for Provigil," according to the plaintiffs' court papers. Cephalon knew, according to the plaintiffs' court papers, that it would lose "enormous" profits if generic versions of the drug entered the market. The plaintiffs alleged that Cephalon entered into noncompete agreements with the generic drug makers, paying them large sums to delay the sale of generic Provigil. However, prior to the $512 million settlement with the direct purchasers, Cephalon had claimed in its court papers that the class action was an attempt to "second-guess" the settlements with the generic manufacturers, which Cephalon maintained did not violate antitrust laws. Cephalon argued that as long as the settlements did not restrict competition to any greater extent than the patent itself, then they were lawful. Secondly, Cephalon also had argued in court papers that the class members lacked standing in the case because they could not demonstrate that they suffered any concrete, nonspeculative damages, or that the generic manufacturers would have prevailed in the underlying patent infringement litigation. "The courts have recognized that such settlements, rather than being subject to antitrust scrutiny, should be encouraged to promote efficiencies and to stimulate innovation by protecting patent rights," Cephalon's papers said. "Furthermore, plaintiffs' claim that they were injured by the settlements rests on impermissible speculation about what might have happened had the patent litigation continued." According to Judge Goldberg, the plaintiffs' expert, Jeffrey Leitzinger, said that had a generic version of Provigil been available sooner, the purchasers would have saved a significant amount of money. Conversely, the defendants' expert, Janusz Ordover, opined that while buyers on the lower end of the distribution chain would buy generics from the direct purchasers, the direct purchasers, who often buy brand-name drugs exclusively, would actually lose money once generic drugs entered the market. Lead plaintiffs attorney in the case, Dianne Nast of NastLaw, did not return a call seeking comment. Mylan's attorney, C. Fairley Spillman -- fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., and Ranbaxy's attorney, Danielle Foley -- drfoley@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP in Washington, D.C., did not return calls seeking comment. In May, Judge Goldberg approved a $1.2 billion settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Cephalon over the same allegations of reverse payments regarding Provigil. Prior to the settlement, Judge Goldberg denied class certification to a group of end payors who sued Cephalon for antitrust violations, among other claims. The plaintiffs, like those in the current class, had argued the delay of generic Provigil's entry into the market forced them to pay more for the medication. RESTORATION HARDWARE: Guidance Issued on Use of Discount Coupon --------------------------------------------------------------- Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a court in California has provided additional guidance regarding the manner in which members in a class action lawsuit can use the 33% merchandise discount coupon. On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated class member response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims administrator, began mailing the class action award to class members. The Company, through the third party claims administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not request the cash award. During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the 33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other promotional offers. RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial Court Judge Erred in Transferring Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case of TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF, BOROUGH OF GLEN ROCK, and BOROUGH OF MIDLAND PARK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, Defendant-Respondent, NO. A-2703-13T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.) Village of Ridgewood is a municipal corporation that owns and operates the Ridgewood Water Utility. In addition to providing potable water to the residents of Ridgewood, the Utility fulfills the potable water needs of the residents of the Township of Wyckoff, the Borough of Glen Rock, and the Borough of Midland Park pursuant to franchise agreements. Wyckoff, Glen Rock, and Midland Park filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs in the Superior Court, Law Division, challenging the validity of three ordinances enacted by Ridgewood that increased the water rates charged by the Utility to its customers by a total of 31% over the course of 2010, 2011, and 2012. Plaintiffs contend that the Utility rate ordinances Ridgewood adopted in 2010, 2011, and 2012 are: (1) inconsistent with N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(a), which requires annual rental charges to be uniform and equitable for the same type and class of use; (2) in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c), which limits the type of costs that can be included in establishing water rates; (3) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions; and (4) arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Defendant asserts the rates established by the three challenged ordinances are in accordance with the Act and were set at levels sufficient to pay all of its operational expenses, as authorized by N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c)(1), as well as include sufficient revenue to establish a surplus or contingency fund to meet unanticipated expenses, as permitted under N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c)(2). Plaintiffs' case was certified as a class action and after nearly three years of discovery and motion practice, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with both sides claiming the case was ripe for disposition as a matter of law. Instead of deciding the summary judgment motions, the Law Division judge invoked her authority under Rule 1:13-4(a) and sua sponte transferred the case to the Board of Public Utilities (BPU). By leave granted, plaintiffs argue the trial court's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 40A:31-23(e) improperly deprived the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction to decide the statutory claims raised in the class action. Plaintiffs argue the Superior Court has express subject matter jurisdiction to determine legal challenges to municipal ordinances under the Prerogative Writ Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, N.J. Const. Art. VI, Section 5. Alternatively, plaintiffs maintain the Law Division has concurrent jurisdiction with the BPU to determine the uniformity of the rates charged by Ridgewood, and the interests of justice and judicial economy favor allowing the parties to proceed in the Law Division. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims based on a lack of uniformity in the rates support the motion judge's decision to transfer the case to the BPU. It argues that the motion judge's decision is supported by the jurisdictional provision in N.J.S.A. 40A:31-23(e). The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed and remanded the suit, holding that the motion judge erred in applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction transferring the case to the BPU. A copy of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division's opinion dated July, 15, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/28unSi from Leagle.com. Steven Siegel -- ssiegel@sillscummis.com -- Joseph B. Fiorenzo -- jfiorenzo@sillscummis.com -- at Sills, Cummis & Gross, counsel for appellants William W. Northgrave -- wnorthgrave@msbnj.com -- at McManimon, Scotland, & Baumann, L.L.C., counsel for respondents The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel consists of Judges Victor Ashrafari, Jose L. Fuentes and Amy O'Connor. ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued For Denying Marriage Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------- Christina Fan, writing for WOWKTV.com, reported that the battle over same-sex marriage continues to rage on in many communities. Nearly two weeks after the Supreme Court ruling legalized gay marriage across the country, at least two Kentucky counties are refusing to issue licenses. Protestors are still demonstrating outside the Rowan County courthouse following Clerk Kim Davis's decision to withhold marriage licenses from same-sex and heterosexual couples. She denied 13 News's request for an interview on, July 8, but has stated publicly on many other occasions that she will not issue licenses because of her religious beliefs. "I don't understand why you would want to deny the right to love, because to me one of the fundamental values in the Bible is love," said Keisha Reid, who has been protesting outside the courthouse. Besides the protests, Davis has also be facing warnings of legal liability. The American Civil Liberties Union in Kentucky filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of four couples against the clerk. "Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs," wrote cooperating attorney Laura Landenwich in a press release. But there are also many people in the community that have come to Davis's defense. One man who did not want to be named stood in front of her offices with a sign to show his support. "I think she's doing the right thing," he said. "It's a shame and a disgrace how Christian people are being attacked." The case against Davis will be heard at the federal courthouse in Ashland. According to the ACLU, the Casey county clerk is also continues to refuse to issue licenses. As of now, no legal action has been taken there. SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit to Remain in W.D. Okla. ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of Oklahoma denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case TONY R. WHISENANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIDAN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, CASE NO. CIV-15- 81-M (W.D. Okla.) Tony Whisenant filed a class action petition, on behalf of himself and the class of all others persons similarly situated, in the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff bases his claim on defendant's prior underpayment or non-payment of royalties owed to plaintiff on natural gas and/or constitutes of the gas stream produced from wells in Beaver County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, who owned a part of the working interest in and paid royalty to plaintiff on the wells, breached the implied covenant of the leases between the parties by its action and/or inaction. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant breached its fiduciary duty to the class members by failing to properly report, account for, and distribute gas to the class members for their proportionate royalty share of gas production. Defendant removed the case to the present court alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand alleging the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. District Judge Miles LaGrange denied the motion to remand. A copy of Judge Miles-LaGrange's order dated July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/WH2Zabfrom Leagle.com. Tony R Whisenant, Plaintiff, represented by Rex A Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- at Gunderson Sharp & Walke LLP; Michael E Grant -- at Grant Law Firm Sheridan Production Company LLC, Defendant, represented by John J. Griffin, Jr. -- john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com -- Erin P. Sullenger -- erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com -- L Mark Walker -- mark.walker@crowedunlevy.com -- at Crowe & Dunlevy SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Market Watch reported that The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Silver Wheaton Corp. SLW, - 1.05% securities from March 30, 2011 through July 6, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Silver Wheaton investors under the federal securities laws. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver Wheaton lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Silver Wheaton's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 8, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-662.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. STORM FINANCIAL: $34MM Deal a Win, Atty Behind Class Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier Mail, reported that the lawyer behind the class action argued the $34 million settlement was a win of sorts. Stewart Levitt of Levitt Robinson contended while 143 litigants had lost some of their settlement in legal fees, they had still gotten to take CBA to open court and air internal concerns at CBA about Storm. The litigants had had their cake "and got to eat most of it too", Mr Levitt said. He further argued litigants had benefited with a longer moratorium on mortgage repayments. CBA, in a statement, welcomed the settlement but noted individual customers would get the same amount offered in 2012 "less legal costs and plus interest". Townsville-based Storm Financial was an advisory business with thousands of clients that saw their share investments smashed in the global financial crisis. Many had, under Storm's advice, taken out loans against their homes from banks including CBA to invest in shares. Some banks later compensated clients. CBA offered $132 million under its own resolution scheme. Then, after the class action started, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and CBA brokered a separate deal for up to $136 million. Some people rejected that offer, continuing with the class action. "The people that didn't (settle initially), didn't because they didn't want the bank off the hook," he said. But Mr Levitt said a subsequent Federal Court ruling last in a separate financial case, Quikfund versus Airmark had "effectively undermined our claim". He had received legal advice that that ruling put their own case in jeopardy, hence the decision to settle for the original 2012 offer was put to litigants and finalised in Federal Court. "It's still not such a bad offer," he said. "There was not a single objector" among litigants to setting. Mr Levitt argued issues including CBA executives' concern about Storm as far back as 2003 were aired during court hearings, but the media had lost interest given the collapse occurred more than five years ago. Those engaged in litigation will get a $33.7 million settlement, which falls within CBA's original offer of up to $136 million. Legal costs were $9.8 million, which Mr Stewart said included the price of counsel and was actually $4 million less than typical costs. Levitt Robinson had success elsewhere, such as it and ASIC reaching a settlement with Bank of Queensland for $20 million in September. Mr Levitt estimated litigants in various actions with banks had won more than $200 million. SUCCESS ACADEMY: Bronx Parents Intervene in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Ben Chapman and Lisa L. Colangelo, writing for New York Daily News, reported that 19 Bronx parents whose children were set to attend a growing Success Academy charter school are trying to intervene in a lawsuit that could prevent the school from opening as planned in August. The class action suit against the charter school -- filed by labor attorney Arthur Schwartz on behalf of another group of parents -- says the charter at P.S. 145 would take needed resources from other schools and disabled students. "It's a school where every single classroom is used," Schwartz said. Charter school officials and the city dispute that claim and say the building has excess space. If the suit succeeds, Success Academy officials say almost 100 third-graders in its Bronx 3 program will have no classrooms when school starts in six weeks. "My son needs a space to go to school," said Bernadette Soobyiah, a full-time mom from Castle Hill, whose son is set to enter third grade at the charter school when classes start in August. "There's not another option for him in the area." A spokesman for the city Law Department said the city is taking steps to have the lawsuit blocking the charter dismissed. SUNBELT RENTALS: All-South Subcontractors' Suit Remanded -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr. of the Middle District of Georgia, Albany Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case ALL-SOUTH SUBCONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-124 (WLS) (M.D. Ga.) Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. rents equipment and machinery to construction companies. All-South Subcontractors was its customer. All-South filed a complaint before the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, alleging breach of contract and related claims. All-South alleges that Sunbelt assessed customers subject to the referenced terms more than the amount of money necessary to cover its direct and indirect costs in violation of the contract. It proposes two classes, the Refueling Class and the Transportation Fee Class. Sunbelt removed the matter to the federal district court. All- South filed a motion to remand the suit, while Sunbelt filed motion for judgment on the pleadings and for protective order. Judge Sands granted plaintiff's motion to remand and denied defendant's motion for protective order as moot. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia. Since the case is remanded the court declines to consider the motion for judgment on the pleadings. A copy of Judge Sands's order dated July, 14, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/qF86mgfrom Leagle.com. ALL-SOUTH SUBCONTRACTORS INC, Plaintiff, represented by: Charles Edward Peeler, Esq. Patrick S Flynn, Esq. FLYNN+PEELER+PHILLIPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 517 W Broad Ave Albany, GA 31701 Telephone: 229-518-4050 Facsimile: 229-446-4884 - and - Nicholas W Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M Price, Iv, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC 2421 2nd Ave North, Unit 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-208-9588 Facsimile: 205-208-9598 - and - Taylor C Bartlett, Esq W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-326-3336 Facsimile: 205-326-3332 SUNBELT RENTALS INC, Defendant, represented by DONALD W LEE -- fredlee@leedurham.com -- at Lee Durham, LLC; IRENE BASSEL FRICK -- irene.bassel@akerman.com -- JASON L MARGOLIN -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- L JOSEPH SHAHEEN, JR. -- joseph.shaheen@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Barber v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00568, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05113 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com - and - Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: skye@consumersadvocates.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5300 Facsimile: (213) 443-5400 E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Farrell v. Target Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00635, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05112 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq. Tran Hai Thi Nguyen, Esq. John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5300 Facsimile: (213) 443-5400 E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com TARGET CORP: Data Breach Case May Move to Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reported that five financial institutions have asked a U.S. District Court for class action status in their ongoing battle over Target's 2013 data breach, which compromised approximately 110 million credit and debit cards. In their filings, the five plaintiffs -- Umpqua Bank, Mutual Bank, Village Bank, CSE Federal Credit Union and First Federal Savings of Lorain -- told the court a combined total of nearly 25,000 of their issued debit and credit cards were affected by the data breach. The vast majority were issued by Umpqua Bank, which said 14,282 of its Visa-branded debit cards were compromised in the Target data breach, according to court documents. Umpqua noted that at the time of the breach, it also had an impending merger with Sterling Savings Bank, which had approximately 7,314 debit and credit cards compromised. First Federal Savings of Lorain reported that approximately 490 of its debit and credit cards were compromised in the data breach. Village Bank reported approximately 970 debit cards were compromised, Mutual Bank reported approximately 1,391 debit cards were compromised and CSE FCU said approximately 445 of its debit cards were compromised. All four financial institutions said the cards were Visa-branded. "As Target implicitly conceded by its recent failed attempt to institute a class-type settlement with MasterCard, we believe this case is appropriate for certification as a class," Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Karl Cambronne of Chestnut Cambronne PA, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, said in a statement to CU Times. "We will continue working to hold Target accountable for the significant losses financial institutions suffered, including for the costs of reissuing compromised cards and fraud losses that occurred as a result of the data breach." Earlier, Target and MasterCard negotiated a $19 million settlement for card issuers affected by the breach, but the five financial institutions fought it, telling a Minnesota District Court judge that, among other things, card issuers should've been included in the negotiations and that $19 million didn't cover their costs of dealing with the breach. The judge denied the injunction request, saying that although "the terms of the settlement do not appear altogether fair or reasonable," MasterCard and Target were free to negotiate a settlement on their own in part because the card issuers lacked class action status. In May, the settlement derailed anyway when fewer than the requisite 90% of issuers accepted the offer by Target's May 20 deadline. In the latest filings, attorney Gordon Rudd told the court he met twice with the defendants' counsel to discuss the class certification but the two sides couldn't agree on the resolution of any part of the motion. The hearing on class certification is scheduled for Sept. 10. TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone -------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Parenteral Medicines announced a voluntary recall of six lots of Adrucil(R) (fluorouracil injection, USP) 5 g/100 mL (50 mg/mL) due to the potential presence of particulate matter identified as aggregate of silicone rubber pieces from a filler diaphragm and fluorouracil crystals. The recalled lots are as follows: Lot # Exp. Vial NDC# individual NDC# carton ----- Date Size --------------- of 5 vials ---- ----- ----------- 31317857B 8/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 31317859B 12/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 31317920B 12/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 31317957B 12/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 31318136B 12/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 31318138B 12/2015 100 mL 0703-3019-11 0703-3019-12 Administration of an intravenous product with particulate matter has the potential to result in inflammation, allergic reactions, or blockage of blood vessels, leading to tissue death, which may be life-threatening if vital organs are affected. To date, Teva has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall. Adrucil(R) Injection is used in the palliative management of carcinoma of the colon, rectum, breast, stomach and pancreas and is packaged in pharmacy bulk packages. The pharmacy bulk package has five 5 g/100ml vials per shelf pack. Individual Adrucil(R) 5 g/100 ml vials have the NDC code 0703-3019-11 and the pharmacy shelf pack has the NDC code 0703-3019-12. The Adrucil(R) 5 g/100 ml vial can be further identified by the statement on the label in red that states "PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE NOT FOR DIRECT INFUSION". Adrucil(R) 5 g/100 ml vials were distributed in the United States. Teva has distributed this product nationwide through wholesalers, retailers, and pharmacies. Teva has notified its direct customers by mail and has issued an Urgent Drug Recall Letter to direct customers. Teva is arranging for impacted product to be returned to Inmar. Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lots should stop use and distribution, and quarantine the product immediately. Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have further distributed the recalled product should notify any accounts or additional locations which may have received the recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the user level. For medical related questions please contact Medical Information at 888-838-2872, option 3, then option 4. For a customer service related question, please contact Teva Customer Service at 800-545- 8800 Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 5:00 EST. Consumers should immediately contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this drug product. Teva Parenteral Medicines is voluntarily recalling the aforementioned product lots with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456098.htm TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Christiansen" in August ------------------------------------------------------------ Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, in the case, Kristin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34- 2013-00139010, hearing on class certification is expected in August 2015. The Company said, "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and the parties are proceeding with discovery on class certification issues. Class certification briefing is currently expected to conclude in July 2015 with a hearing in August 2015. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. We intend to defend this case vigorously." TILLY'S INC: Defending Against "Rebolledo" Action ------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. is defending the case, Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. We intend to defend this case vigorously." TILLY'S INC: Filed Answer to "Whitten" Action --------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. has filed its answer to the complaint in the case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No, BC 548252, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015. We intend to defend this case vigorously." TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Ortiz" Case Discuss Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Herbert Ortiz and Audra Haynes, individually, and on behalf of the generally public, v. Tilly's Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No, 1:15-CV-00108-MJS, the parties stipulated to stay the action while they discuss settlement, Tilly's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015. The Company said, "On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs." "On January 21, 2015, we answered the complaint and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the parties stipulated to stay the action while they discuss settlement. The parties also stipulated that if settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the plaintiffs' claims will be arbitrated on an individual, and not a class or representative, basis, as required under the terms of the arbitration agreements they signed. If the matter does not settle, the Company intends to defend the case vigorously." TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay $230K to Texas Woman in Robocall Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Post, reported that it wasn't a robocall, but a federal judge left a message anyway for companies when he awarded nearly $230,000 to a Texas woman, finding that a cable company crossed the line when it harassed her with 153 robocalls even after she complained about the wrong numbers. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan ordered Time Warner Cable to make the $229,500 payment to Araceli King of Irving, Tex., citing the New York-based company's "particularly egregious" behavior as it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. King sued last year, saying she had repeatedly asked the company to stop making the calls. Susan Leepson, a Time Warner Cable spokeswoman, said the company is reviewing its options and determining how to proceed. Hellerstein said he tripled the penalty to $1,500 for each call because Time Warner Cable's actions were "particularly egregious" -- it continued making the calls even after King complained in a seven-minute phone conversation in October 2013 with a company representative that the calls to her phone were apparently meant for a customer she did not know. The judge noted that 74 of the calls were made after the company received a copy of King's lawsuit in March 2014. King's attorney, Sergei Lemberg, said the decision sends a message to consumers to "stop taking it on the chin" when robocalls don't stop and a message to companies that it's necessary to pay attention to human beings, even when technology is used to make repeated calls. TRACFONE: Pays $45-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Deceptive Ads --------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge approved a $45 million judgment against TracFone for making false claims that its mobile phone contracts gave customers "unlimited" data. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen approved the settlement on July 2. TracFone will pay $40 million to the Federal Trade Commission, for distribution to 1.9 million class members, and another $5 million in attorneys' fees. The 2014 consolidated class action claimed TracFone's deceptive ads misled customers about its prepaid Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile and TelCel America data plans. In fact, TracFone "throttled," suspended or terminated service to customers once they reached a 30-day data limit. The class sued TracFone under California's Unfair Competition Law, its Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The FTC filed a separate enforcement action in January this year. Chen's approval puts the consolidated class action to rest. "Depending on the precise injury, a class member experienced (i.e., whether their service was throttled, suspended or terminated) and when that injury occurred, class members who made a claim will receive between roughly $15 and $65 per affected phone line," Chen wrote. "TracFone further agreed to the entry of injunctive relief regarding its advertising and disclosure practices with respect to its 'unlimited' data plans." Chen said that 1.8 million to 1.9 million customers will automatically receive payment without filing a claim, while others must submit a "simple" claims form to recover under the settlement. As of June 22, more than 800,000 forms had been submitted, according to the settlement administrator. TracFone attorney Ryan Sandrock told Courthouse News he could not comment on the settlement. The FTC did not return a phone call. Class counsel will get $5 million in attorneys' fees, plus the full requested amount of $63,644.75 for costs. TRUEBLUE INC: "Smalls" Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted defendants' motion to transfer the case of CRAIG SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUEBLUE, INC., a Washington corporation; LABOR READY MID-ATLANTIC, INC., a Washington corporation; and FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., a Florida corporation, Defendants, CSE NO. 15-CV-5126 RBL (W.D. Wash.) Craig Smalls applied for a temporary position at Labor Ready in North Carolina. Labor Ready required a background check, as it does with all applicants, and required Smalls to sign an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause. Labor Ready engaged a consumer reporting agency, defendant First Advantage, to assist with the background check, and to grade applicants either eligible or ineligible for employment. Smalls was given a score of ineligible. Smalls sued Labor Ready, claiming the background check process violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide FCRA- required notices, disclosures, and documentation related to the background check. He purports to represent a class of similarly situated temporary work applicants. Smalls specifically claims that Labor Ready accepted First Advantage's grade at face value, without further investigation, and that by failing to notify him in advance of the adverse action, Labor Ready violated his FCRA rights. Smalls asserted that bringing his cause of action in the Western District of Washington is proper because his injuries allegedly arose at Western District of Washington. He also maintains that venue is proper because Labor Ready and TrueBlue are both Washington corporations. In his claim, Smalls states that the FCRA disclosure and pre-adverse action notices he challenges were drafted from the Western District of Washington. Labor Ready argues that the action could have been brought in North Carolina and the interests of justice and convenience favor transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of North Carolina. Judge Leighton granted defendants' motion to transfer, and the case is transferred to the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. A copy of Judge Leighton's order dated June 26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MW6V1sfrom Leagle.com. Craig Smalls, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Peluso -- ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Steven L. Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC; Clifford A Cantor -- at Clifford A Cantor Law Offices Trueblue, Inc. and Labor Ready Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley Bishop Jones -- bjones@gth-law.com -- Reuben Schutz -- rschutz@gth-law.com -- at GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, represented by Esther Slater McDonald -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com -- Frederick T. Smith -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Thomas J Wybenga -- twybenga@seyfarth.com -- at SEYFARTH SHAW LLP TUBELITE INC: Fax Sent Not "Advertisement," Says Judge ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Victor A. Bolden of the District of Connecticut granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case P&S PRINTING LLC, d/b/a/ MINUTEMAN PRESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tubelite, Inc.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1441 (VAB) (D. Conn.) P&S Printing LLC doing business as Minuteman Press, filed a complaint as a proposed class action against Tubelite, Inc., a company that specializes in eco-efficient storefront, curtain wall and entrance systems. Plaintiff alleges that Tubelite sent an unsolicited advertisement to its fax, a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA). Minuteman alleges that Tubelite's conduct violated the TCPA because Minuteman did not authorize Tubelite to send a fax, nor did it have a business relationship with Tubelite before the fax was sent. It further alleges that the fax was an advertisement that did not have a provision explaining how the recipient could opt-out or stop receiving the fax, as required by the statute and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. Minuteman claims that the allegations establish that Tubelite negligently violated of the TCPA and, accordingly, seeks damages and injunctive relief. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Bolden granted in his ruling dated July 17, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://goo.gl/2RpGPWfrom Leagle.com. P & S Printing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Alexander T. Hornat, Esq. Stephen F Taylor, Esq. Lemberg & Associates, LLC 1100 Summer St Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: 855-301-2100 Tubelite, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles K. Seyfarth -- charles.seyfarth@leclairryan.com -- Michael G. Caldwell -- michael.caldwell@leclairryan.com -- at LeClairRyan UBER: Challenges Class Suit Over Employee Certification ------------------------------------------------------- Katy Steinmetz, writing for Time, reported that Uber filed a motion in a California court opposing a class action lawsuit against the company, marking the latest salvo in the increasingly pitched battle over how workers are treated in the multi-billion dollar on-demand economy. The lawsuit filed in California's Northern District Court alleges that Uber drivers in California should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Uber challenged the certification of the class in its motion, arguing that the more than 160,000 Uber drivers in the state have "little or nothing in common," aside from having downloaded and used the Uber app "at some point over the past six years." The suit is one of several pending cases that could have profound implications for the on-demand economy, which includes some of the world's hottest technology startups. Companies like six-year-old Uber, now valued at $50 billion, have been able scale fast in part because they classify many of their workers as independent contractors, which frees them from costly obligations like remitting payroll taxes and paying worker's compensation and other duties that typically accompany an employer-employee relationship. Nor does the company reimburse drivers for expenses like gas and car maintenance, which the lawsuit alleges are owed to tens of thousands of drivers for years of work. In its motion, Uber argues that a successful class action suit "could force Uber to restructure its entire business model." It could also have a ripple effect across the burgeoning startup culture, leading other companies with similar structures to recalibrate. In addition to the case against Uber, lawsuits challenging the status of workers are pending against Lyft, Uber's chief U.S. rival; Postmates, which offers on-demand delivery; Homejoy, which offers on-demand cleaning; and Instacart, an on- demand grocery shopping service. The lawyers pursuing these cases believe that the companies are skirting labor laws by identifying themselves as technology platforms that connect willing workers with users who need services, rather than, say, a taxi service that employs drivers. "They're claiming there's something new and different because their services are provided through technology, through a smartphone," Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the suit against Uber, told TIME in an earlier interview. "But there's nothing new about this." Uber is adamant that they are not a traditional employer. Its motion challenging the class certification emphasizes the variety among drivers, the different amounts and ways they use Uber's app and the various terms of agreement they have with the company. The filing also included declarations of from about 400 drivers in the state, many of whom say they value the freedom of the current arrangement and don't want anything to change. "I don't want anyone to take away this flexibility by suing Uber," writes an L.A.-based UberX driver named Janice Fry. The company says a ruling against it could eliminate that independence. "As employees, drivers would drive set shifts, earn a fixed hourly wage, and lose the ability to drive using other ridesharing apps as well as the personal flexibility they most value," Uber said in a statement. For example, Uber emphasizes that many of its drivers also work for competing companies like Lyft and Sidecar, and sometimes have multiple companies apps on at once. In its motion, Uber claims the suit "would force drivers to pick one app over all others." UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Under Probe for Deceptive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Anne Flaherty, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the University of Phoenix, which runs an online college popular among military veterans, is under federal investigation for possible deceptive or unfair business practices, its parent company the Apollo Education Group told shareholders on July 29. The for-profit, publicly traded company is the largest recipient of federal student aid for veterans and often a sponsor at military education and employment events. Since 2009, when the GI Bill expanded student aid benefits for veterans, the University of Phoenix online program has collected more than $488 million in tuition and fees for veterans -- a figure that dwarfs nearly every other institution identified as a GI recipient by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company disclosed that it had received a "civil investigative demand" from the Federal Trade Commission. According to the document, investigators asked for information on a "broad spectrum" of matters, including marketing, recruiting, enrollment, financial aid, tuition, academic programs, billing and debt collection, as well other facets of the business. The filing lists "military recruitment" as one of the areas the FTC is examining. The filing said Apollo is "evaluating the demand and intends to cooperate fully with the FTC." Apollo and the FTC declined to comment further. The FTC probe is the latest of several state and federal investigations into the for-profit college industry. Critics say many of these colleges are aggressive in recruiting students who qualify for large amounts of federal student aid, including GI money. But the credits often don't transfer to other schools and aren't recognized by employers. Industry officials say they are unfairly being scrutinized, and say for-profit schools have expanded education opportunities to communities that wouldn't otherwise have access. On July 1, new federal rules went into effect for any school with a career-training program. Graduates have to be able to earn enough money to repay their student loans, or a school risks losing access to financial aid. Consumer advocates say the regulation is a first step toward reining in the industry. But, they add, because the regulation looks at employment rates for graduates, it won't affect schools with high dropout rates. The University of Phoenix has collected more than a half a billion dollars in GI assistance since 2009. While its online program received $488 million, its campuses also took in large sums to educate vets. In San Diego, Calif., for example, its campus received $134 million in GI tuition assistance, while its campus in Costa Mesa, Calif., received $122 million. By comparison, the top recipient of GI tuition assistance among public institutions is the University of Maryland-University College, with $150 million in GI tuition since 2009. URANERZ ENERGY: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU ----------------------------------------------------- Uranerz Energy Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, that counsel for the parties in a class action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the consolidated action. On January 4, 2015, Uranerz Energy Corporation, a Nevada corporation ("Uranerz" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Energy Fuels Inc., an Ontario corporation ("Energy Fuels"), and EFR Nevada Corp., a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of a subsidiary of Energy Fuels ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides for a business combination whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Transaction"), and as a result the Company will continue as the surviving operating corporation and as an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels. This Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation related to the Merger Agreement. As contemplated by the MOU, Uranerz is providing certain additional disclosures to those contained in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 27, 2015 (the "proxy statement/prospectus") and mailed on or about May 29, 2015 to the Uranerz shareholders of record as of the close of business on May 26, 2015 in connection with the solicitation of proxies for use at the special meeting of shareholders of Uranerz to be held on June 18, 2015, at 10:00 A.M., local time, at Casper Petroleum Club, 1301 Wilkins Circle, Casper, Wyoming, U.S.A., 82601. The purpose of the special meeting of shareholders of Uranerz is to vote on the approval of the Transaction and related matters. Litigation Related to the Merger As disclosed on pages 24 and 151 of the proxy statement/prospectus under the caption "Litigation Related to the Transaction," Uranerz, all of its directors, Energy Fuels, and Merger Sub were named as defendants in the following putative shareholder class action suits in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada and the District Court of Washoe County, Nevada: Barrett v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-711942-C (Clark Cnty.); Foreman v. Catchpole, et al., No. A-15-712125-C (Clark Cnty.); Travirca v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712318- C (Clark Cnty.); Heims v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712379 (Clark Cnty.); Bouch v. Uranerz Energy Corp, et al., No. A-15-712441-B (Clark Cnty.); Toderash v. Higgs, et al., No. A-15-712433-C (Clark Cnty.); Stern v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712618-B (Clark Cnty.); Lang v. Higgs, et al., No. CV-15-00115 (Washoe Cnty.); Zimmer v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712718-B (Clark Cnty.); Prewitt v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15- 713683 (Clark Cnty.). These suits generally allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims regarding the Transaction and seek, inter alia, prohibition and/or rescission of the Merger Agreement, and attorneys' fees and costs. All of the cases in Clark County have been consolidated under the caption In Re Uranerz Energy Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. A-15-711942-B. A motion is pending to transfer the Washoe County case to Clark County, or stay the Washoe County case pending resolution of the consolidated case in Clark County. On May 18, 2015, the lead plaintiffs in Clark County filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting claims similar to those brought in the original complaints and adding claims relating to the disclosures included by Uranerz and Energy Fuels in the Form F-4 registration statement filed by Energy Fuels with the SEC on May 8, 2015. On June 10, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuit (as consolidated) entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the consolidated action, including the dismissal with prejudice of the action and a release on behalf of individual plaintiffs and the class of shareholders alleged in the consolidated amended complaint of all claims made therein or that could have been made therein against all of the defendants. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the Transaction, and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Court. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the Transaction will be consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of the Transaction consideration that Uranerz stockholders are entitled to receive in the Transaction. The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the consolidated action described above or otherwise in relation to the Transaction, and believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under any applicable laws. The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement described above solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Transaction. VIRGINIA: Solitary-Confinement Suits Head to Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that legal challenges to solitary-confinement policies are working their way through the federal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court faster than one justice in particular may have anticipated. On June 18, in a concurring opinion in Davis v. Ayala, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled his concerns about the "terrible price" exacted by prolonged solitary confinement on prisoners' mental and physical health, as well as the "many issues" that confinement presents. He ended by saying, "In a case that presented the issue, the judiciary may be required, within its proper jurisdiction and authority, to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them." Less than three weeks later, a petition for review in Prieto v. Clarke was filed in the high court raising a due-process challenge to Virginia's policy of permanently assigning death-sentenced prisoners to solitary confinement. "Some Virginia inmates have been maintained in solitary confinement for over 15 years without any review of whether their conditions are appropriate," wrote Alfredo Prieto's counsel, Michael Bern -- michael.bern@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins. Before the year ends, at least two federal court trials are scheduled in solitary-confinement challenges: a California class action involving Pelican Bay State Prison inmates who raise Eighth Amendment and due-process claims, and a due-process challenge by Albert Woodfox, the last of the so-called Angola 3, who has spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement for the 1972 murder of a Louisiana prison guard. On its way back for trial is a South Carolina case -- Incumaa v. Stirling -- in which a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found a triable question of whether a prisoner, serving life without parole, has ever had meaningful review of his 20 years in solitary confinement. "It's very, very hard to raise these issues, but the reality is there are a lot of people in solitary confinement," said Steven Goldblatt, director of the appellate litigation program at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Goldblatt and the program's supervising attorney, Ruthanne Deutsch, represented Lumumba Incumaa in the Fourth Circuit. The difficulty is that the cases generally are pro se litigation, Mr. Goldblatt said. "[The prisoners] are not making the right record and not articulating issues when they get up on appeal," he said. And if confinement is anything less than five years, he added, it is nearly impossible to succeed. "We're hoping that with cases like Incumaa, and with Justice Kennedy's language in Ayala, we're going to see lawyers making these records and we may see a huge difference," he said. Death and Due Process Mr. Prieto, convicted of two capital murders, is one of eight death-sentenced Virginia inmates who, under state policy, must be confined permanently to single cells in a prison unit known as death row until executed. The solitary-confinement conditions, the Fourth Circuit panel that ultimately ruled against him said, are "undeniably severe. Indeed, the district court, perhaps correctly, described the isolation that characterizes Virginia's death row as 'dehumanizing.' " After six years on death row, Mr. Prieto brought an action claiming his confinement violated his procedural due-process and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed his Eighth Amendment claim, but found that conditions on Virginia's death row were "eerily reminiscent" of those the Supreme Court in a 2005 decision said implicated a liberty interest protected by the due- process clause. And because these conditions were "uniquely severe" and pervasive compared to the conditions of the general prison population, the district court held that Mr. Prieto had established a due-process liberty interest in avoiding them. Mr. Prieto's automatic and permanent assignment to death row did not afford him constitutionally adequate process, the judge said. A divided three-judge appellate panel reversed. The majority held that Mr. Prieto was wrong in arguing that harsh and atypical confinement itself gave rise to a due-process liberty interest. Instead, Mr. Prieto first had to show that some state law or policy gave rise to his due process right or liberty interest in avoiding those conditions. And second, he had to demonstrate that those conditions were harsh and atypical in relation to the "ordinary incidents of prison life." The state's policy of automatic and permanent assignment to death row, the majority said, foreclosed any due-process expectation or right of capital offenders to any other housing assignment. And under Virginia law assigning capital offenders to death row, it added, the "ordinary incidents of prison life" for those inmates are housing on death row. In his high court petition, Mr. Prieto's counsel urges the justices to resolve differences among the circuits on two issues: whether inmates must point to an entitlement in state laws or rules and not to the confinement conditions themselves to establish a due-process liberty interest; and what is the baseline for measuring the "ordinary incidents of prison life" in any particular prison system. From Seven to 40 Years Four months after the Prieto decision, a different Fourth Circuit panel (except for one member) reached a different result when applying the two-step test in Prieto to Lumumba Incumaa's claim that his 20 years in solitary confinement violated his due-process rights. The unanimous panel held that he had established a protected liberty interest in avoiding that confinement because department policy required review of the lifer's confinement every 30 days. And, it said, Mr. Incumaa's solitary confinement amounted to atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary conditions for the general prison population. Mr. Incumaa has had no disciplinary infractions in 20 years. The panel remanded his case for trial on whether the corrections department's process for determining which prisoners are fit for release from solitary confinement meets minimum requirements of procedural due process. "There is a role for solitary confinement in American prisons," said George Kendall of Squire Patton Boggs. "If somebody is a danger or threat to the general order of prison, and the state can make the case for that, it can continue to hold the prisoner there. But you can't hold someone there for something that happened four decades ago." Albert Woodfox, now 68, entered solitary confinement more than 40 years ago after his conviction with two others for his role in the 1972 murder of a prison guard. Mr. Woodfox was serving a 50-year sentence for armed robbery in Louisiana's Angola prison at the time of the murder. Mr. Kendall has represented him since 2005. Mr. Woodfox's conviction has been overturned twice, and a federal district judge recently barred a third trial and ordered his release based on his age and poor health; his limited ability to present a defense at a third trial in light of the unavailability of witnesses; the court's lack of confidence in the state to provide a fair third trial; the prejudice done to him by more than 40 years in solitary confinement; and the state's inability to secure a valid conviction after two trials. A Fifth Circuit panel on June 12 blocked the judge's order in Woodfox v. Cain, pending the state's appeal. Besides the Fifth Circuit litigation, Mr. Kendall has a separate lawsuit raising Mr. Woodfox's due-process challenge to his solitary confinement. The trial is scheduled for Nov. 9.A Dec. 15 federal trial is scheduled in Ashker v. Brown, a class action filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in 2012 on behalf of prisoners in California's Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit who have spent between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement. The prisoners argue that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for security-unit placement violates the prisoners' rights to due process. "Where there is real assessment of these prisoners in about half the states, most states are finding you can drop these populations and have fewer security problems," said Mr. Kendall, pointing to Mississippi as an example. If the Supreme Court ultimately takes up a solitary-confinement case, he added, much will depend on the facts. "You could see a rule that would say [that] if someone is in solitary confinement for more than five years, there has to be some clear, recurring reason," he said. "Things are clearly turning on some of this stuff. There's a broad bipartisan coalition in Congress for [criminal justice] reform. I think there's hope." WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Clemmons v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 5:15-cv-05032, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05071 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2619. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com tomthrash@sbcglobal.net The Defendant is represented by: Judy Simmons Henry, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 212-1391 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: jhenry@wlj.com WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kardasz v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 4:15-cv-00251, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05077 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2619. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Medler, Jr., Esq. MEDLER LAW FIRM 7700 Bonhomme, Suite 360 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 727-8777 Facsimile: (314) 727-7001 E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale L. Beckerman, Esq. DEACY AND DEACY, LLP 920 Main Street, Suite 1900 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-4000 Facsimile: (816) 421-7880 E-mail: dlb@deacylaw.com WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Trinidad v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00090, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05102 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2619. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian A. Jenkins, Esq. MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA 2712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 723-1600 Facsimile: (513) 723-1620 E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com - and - Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. Robert Brent Sherwood, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com rsherwood@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Reinstated ------------------------------------------------------ Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that a federal appeals court has reinstated one of the cases filed by smaller groups of plaintiffs in the long-standing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. gender discrimination lawsuit, overturning a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case. The U.S. Supreme Court held in its 2011 ruling in Betty Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that a proposed gender discrimination class of 1.5 million failed to identify a "common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the company." Since then, smaller groups of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits around the United States seeking class certification. In its ruling the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held in Cheryl Phipps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that plaintiffs were not time-barred from pursuing their litigation and reinstated the case. Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart had successfully persuaded the U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, that plaintiffs were not eligible to pursue their case because the statute of limitations had run out. Wal-Mart said an earlier case established that the statute of limitations was not suspended in the case because it prohibited any class action brought after a previous denial of class certification was applicable, according to the ruling. An appeals court panel disagreed, in a 2-1 ruling. "Courts may be required to decide whether a follow-on class action or particular issues raised within it are precluded by earlier litigation, but we would eviscerate (the federal rule governing class actions) if we were to approve the blanket rule advocated by Wal-Mart . . . that bars all follow-on class actions," said the 2-1 ruling. The ruling said, however, that its opinion was limited to whether the plaintiffs may initiate the lawsuit. "Whether the proposed classes are appropriate for certification is not at issue here," said the ruling. In a related case in 2013, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco ruled that a proposed class of 150,000 plaintiffs faced the same problems that led the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 to reject the 1.5 million-member class: They did not identify a "common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the company,'' as the high court had ruled in 2011. The smaller group of women that worked in the California area, as did the larger group, alleged they were paid less and promoted less often than men. In the ruling, Judge Breyer basically said that while there may be a certifiable class in the group of 150,000, "it has to be a whole lot smaller," said one observer. WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jones v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00085, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05081 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney MacCarone, Esq. Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com srowley@zlk.com - and - Nancy Kulesa, Esq. Shannon Hopkins, Esq. Stephanie Bartone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com shopkins@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-5800 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com hbates@carneywilliams.com The Defendants are represented by: E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq. Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com quattlebaum@qgtb.com WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Marshall, et al. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60246, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05088 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com - and - Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq. HALEY, SINAGRA, PAUL & TOLAND, P.A. 100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 467-1300 Facsimile: (954) 467-1372 E-mail: DKaufman@lgplaw.com WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sparks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05031, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05082 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. 12870 U.S. Hwy. 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Toll Free: (888) 837-2281 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 369-0800 E-mail: piercegore@gorelawfirm.com - and - Richard R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. PO Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 The Defendant is represented by: E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq. Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com quattlebaum@qgtb.com WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05103 to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620. The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain fillers or contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Estok, Esq. LINDSAY HART LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 226-7677 Facsimile: (503) 226-7697 E-mail: mestok@lindsayhart.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne M. Talcott, Esq. SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 796-2991 Facsimile: (503) 796-2900 E-mail: atalcott@schwabe.com WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Case Over Product Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the Central District of California denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case CARYN COLLAZO; KYM HALL; CINDY PETERSON; CAROL SAUER; KRIS THORSEN MICHELS; and AMANDA TAPSCOTT, Plaintiffs, v. WEN BY CHAZ DEAN, INC.; GUTHY-RENKER LTD.; GUTHY-RENKER PARTNERS, INC.; and GUTHY- RENKER LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01974-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.) WEN by Chaz Dean is a hair care product line developed by Los Angeles-based hair stylist, Chaz Dean, in collaboration with Guthy-Renker, a large direct-marketing company. WEN products are primarily distributed through direct marketing techniques, including infomercials, television ads, magazine ads, QVC, and the WEN website. Defendant Wen by Chaz Dean, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. Defendants Guthy-Renker, Ltd., Guthy-Renker Partners, Inc., and Guthy-Renker LLC are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. Caryn Collazo, Kym Hall, Cindy Peterson, Carol Sauer, Kris Thorsen Michels, and Amanda Tapscott alleges that they purchased WEN hair care products after viewing defendants' various advertisements, which consisted of an extensive marketing campaign, including the use of ubiquitous infomercials and television advertising with celebrity testimonials, the internet and widely circulated popular style and fashion magazines. Plaintiffs claim that one or more of WEN products acts as a depilatory or caustic agent, that damages the hair strand and/or follicle, and that defendants failed to disclose and properly warn plaintiffs of the hazardous ingredient. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or should have known of WEN's hazards, but they continued to conceal the dangers of the products and continued to claim that WEN products were safe when properly applied. Plaintiffs raise six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500 et seq.; (4) failure to warn negligence; (5) failure to test negligence; and (6) strict product liability. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' UCL and FAL causes of action. Judge Wright denied defendants' motion to dismiss A copy of Judge Wright's order dated July 17, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/sTIqh2from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Amy E Davis -- adavis@cdbfirm.com -- at Christiansen Davis LLC; & David E Rosen -- drosen@murphyrosen.com -- at Murphy Rosen LLP Wen By Chaz Dean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael B Giaquinto -- mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com -- Barry R Schirm -- bschirm@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP Guthy-Renker Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Michael Jackson -- jonathan.jackson@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP Guthy-Renker Partners, Inc. and Guthy-Renker LLC, Defendants, represented by Dina M Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- at Lewis Wagner LLP; Jonathan Michael Jackson -- jonathan.jackson@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Holbach v. The William Warren Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-002758-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv- 01387-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices and discriminated against him on account of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Owens, Esq. Miguel Bouzas, Esq. BOUZAS OWENS, P.A. 2154 Duck Slough Blvd., Suite 101 Trinity, FL 34655 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: greg@bouzasowens.com miguel@bouzasowens.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew E. Costello, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 750 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 202-3000 Facsimile: (949) 202-3001 E-mail: matthew.costello@haynesboone.com - and - Tamara I. Devitt, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 202-3000 Facsimile: (949) 202-3001 E-mail: tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com - and - W. Drew Sorrell, II, Esq. LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, PA 215 N Eola Dr. PO Box 2809 Orlando, FL 32802-2809 Telephone: (407) 843-4600 Facsimile: (407) 843-4444 E-mail: drew.sorrell@lowndes-law.com WINDSOR SURRY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cover" Suit --------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case MCLANE COVER, Plaintiff, v. WINDSOR SURRY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05262-WHO (N.D. Cal.) McLane Cover installed TrimBoard manufactured and marketed by Windsor Surry Company on his home in Rhode Island in 2005. He selected TrimBoard in reliance on the recommendations of his architect, contractor, and carpenter, all of whom were familiar with TrimBoard, including its marketing materials and warranty. Windsor's warranty guarantees the TrimBoard's "end and edge gluing for 10 years and its primer for 5 years. Cover alleges that, contrary to Windsor's representations, TrimBoard is unable to withstand normal weather conditions, absorbs moisture and water at an extremely rapid rate, is manufactured utilizing low cost, low performance pine, and uses adhesive that is non-waterproof and unsuitable for exterior use. He alleges that these deficiencies lead to water absorption and prematurely decayed, rotted, split, warped and discolored trim. Cover alleges seven causes of action: (i) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Sections 17500, et seq.; (ii) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (iii) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq., (iv) breach of express warranty; (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (vi) negligence; and (vii) declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint arguing that the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims are time-barred because they accrued in 2005 when Cover's agents purchased the TrimBoard. Windsor argues that the claims are not tolled by the discovery rule or equitable tolling. Judge Orrick granted in part and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the order. A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated July 17, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/pjAhNwfrom Leagle.com. McLane Cover, Plaintiff, represented by: Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. Audet & Partners LLP 221 Main St #14160 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-568-2555 Facsimile: 415-568-2556 - and - Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein Sedran Berman; Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- at Baillon Thome Jozwiak Wanta LLP Defendants, represented by Raymond Edward Loughrey -- ray@loughreylaw.com -- at Law Office of Raymond E. Loughrey; Robert Ted Parker -- at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis LLP WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Officers, Directors --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is investigating whether certain officers and directors of World Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: WRLD) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders. On April 22, 2014, a class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the World Acceptance stock during the period January 30, 2013 through April 28, 2014. The class action alleges that the company violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the company's value and growth, and engaging in and concealing deceitful business and lending practices, which caused the market price of World Acceptance shares to be inflated during the class period. The suit further alleges that during the class period, World Acceptance routinely boosted its effective interest rates through two practices: the company bilked customers into purchasing worthless credit insurance products and manipulated them into refinancing loans, ignoring underwriting standards and improperly recording such loans in violation of GAAP, in order to create the misleading perception of significant loan growth. On May 28, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied. Current World Acceptance shareholders who purchased their shares prior to January 30, 2013 may be able to pursue a shareholder derivative action through which World Acceptance insiders may be held accountable for their actions, prevent future misconduct, and bring long-term value back to the company. If you currently own World Acceptance stock and wish to obtain additional information about the investigation and your legal rights, please contact Miranda P. Kolbe either via email at mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com or by telephone at (415) 788-4220, or fill out the form on our website at http://classactionlawyers.com/worldacceptance About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe has extensive experience in prosecuting securities claims, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. * Angeion Expands West Cost Class Suit Presence with Kyle Mason --------------------------------------------------------------- Angeion Group announced the addition of Kyle A. Mason as Vice President of Class Action & Mass Tort Services. Kyle brings over a decade of legal consultative experience with him to Angeion Group where he is responsible for developing customized solutions for clients' unique project demands. Kyle is known in the industry as having both "deep institutional knowledge" and an "impeccable bed- side manner" according to Christopher Chimicles, President of Angeion Group. "Kyle provides keen consultative advice on all aspects of class action and mass tort settlement administration, from notice planning and implementation through disbursements, and we are pleased to have him on our team," said Chimicles. "His background fits seamlessly with Angeion's strength in leveraging innovative technologies to ensure that each settlement administration is completed accurately, efficiently, and cost-effectively." Prior to joining Angeion Group, Kyle was employed by a nationally- recognized class action settlement administrator and was central to building a stronger brand presence in the Western Region's major markets as well as establishing relationships and expanding opportunities with key class action attorneys and firms on both sides of the bar. Kyle achieved success by honing his consulting skills on several key areas, includng consumer finance, data breach and products; TCPA; antitrust; and mass tort matters. Prior to claims administration, Kyle held leadership positions in the medical record review and medical record retrieval industries, including prominent positions at one of the largest national record retrieval companies in the United States as well as tenure at one of the leading companies providing medical record reviews, medical bill audits and life care planning services in the mass tort space. ABOUT ANGEION GROUP Angeion Group is an industry-leading provider of turnkey services for claims administration and litigation support. The company's service offerings include class action claims administration, legal noticing services including mass mailings of data breach notification letters, bankruptcy administration, mass tort administration, electronic discovery, document review and court reporting. Headquartered in Philadelphia in a state-of-the-art 14,000 square foot processing center, Angeion is operationally- equipped to meet the needs of the largest and most complex cases. Additional information on the company can be found at www.angeiongroup.com. Angeion Group Douglas S. Clauson Director, Communications (215) 563-4116 * Capstone Law APC Hires Class Suit Lawyer, Bevin Pike ------------------------------------------------------ Capstone Law APC, a Los Angeles-based class action firm, has hired Bevin Allen Pike as Senior Counsel. Ms. Pike, who has been recognized as a California Super Lawyers "Rising Star" every year from 2012 through 2015, previously practiced with Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti. She will focus primarily on wage-and-hour class actions at Capstone Law. "We are thrilled to have Bevin Pike join our accomplished team of class action litigators as Senior Counsel. Bevin brings to Capstone Law her wealth of experience in certifying and litigating employment class actions up through the appeals process, and is a valued addition to the firm," remarked Capstone Law partner Rebecca Labat. Ms. Pike has extensive experience in the prosecution of labor and employment class actions, including both courtroom experience and appellate work. Over the course of her career, Bevin has successfully certified dozens of employee and consumer classes for such claims as meal and rest breaks, unpaid overtime, off-the- clock work, and false advertising. She is admitted to practice before all federal district courts in California and has argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pike formerly worked alongside Robert Drexler, another Senior Counsel at Capstone Law. Ms. Pike explained her interest in making the move to Capstone Law: "What drew me to Capstone is the talented team of attorneys who have consistently been at the forefront of emerging law while diligently standing up for California's aggrieved employees." Bevin Allen Pike is a graduate of Loyola Law School, where she was an Editor for the International and Comparative Law Review. She received a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Southern California. Capstone Law APC is a California-based plaintiffs' side class action law firm representing employees and consumers across the country in litigation involving labor and workplace rights, privacy laws, automobile and other product defects, consumer protection, false advertising or other deceptive trade practices, and financial fraud. Contact: Stephen Gamber, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-556-4811 Email: Stephen.gamber@capstonelawyers.com * Supreme Court to Consider Effect of Rule 68 in Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy M. Creelan, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that during its next term, the Supreme Court will consider whether class-action defendants can end the cases against them simply by offering complete relief to individually named plaintiffs and offering nothing to the classes those plaintiffs purport to represent. The legal issue involves the intersection of two Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely the effect that Rule 68 -- which allows defendants to serve offers of judgment on specified terms -- has on Rule 23, which governs class actions. The court's guidance cannot come too soon, as circuit courts around the country have answered the question in different ways, and it remains an open question in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Different Theories Rule 68(a) authorizes defendants to "serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued." Under Rule 68(d), if the plaintiff rejects the offer and ultimately obtains less relief than was included in the offer, the plaintiff "must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made." Federal courts of appeals outside of our own have embraced one of three different theories when considering the effect that Rule 68 offers of complete relief have on putative class actions brought under Rule 23. The Seventh Circuit has held that a defendant's Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots both the plaintiff's individual and class claims. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that a Rule 68 offer moots neither a plaintiff's individual nor his class claims. Finally, the Third Circuit has held that while a Rule 68 offer moots a putative class action plaintiff's individual claims, his class claims survive because they "relate back" to the filing of the complaint. Complicating matters further, in 2013 the Supreme Court held in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk that a Rule 68 offer of complete relief could moot both a plaintiff's individual claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as the plaintiff's ability to invoke the FLSA's protections on behalf of "similarly situated" employees. In so holding, however, the court distinguished class actions brought under Rule 23 from collective actions brought under the FLSA, concluding in part -- without analysis -- that "Rule 23 actions are fundamentally different from collective actions under the FLSA." Accordingly, no circuit has yet seen fit to change its rule as it relates to Rule 68's effect on Rule 23 classes in light of Genesis Healthcare. Campbell-Ewald Case The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez in the coming term. In that case, the plaintiff received an unsolicited automated marketing text message that tried to recruit him to join the U.S. Navy from an advertising vendor contracted by the Navy. In response, he filed a putative Rule 23 class action in the Central District of California alleging a single claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of all recipients of the message. The TCPA provides statutory damages of $500 per violation, and treble damages for violations that are willful or knowing. Before Gomez moved for class certification, Campbell-Ewald made a Rule 68 offer that included $1,503 per violation -- more than Gomez could have obtained by litigating the case under the TCPA. After Gomez rejected the Rule 68 offer, Campbell-Ewald moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that its Rule 68 offer for complete relief to Gomez mooted both his individual and class claims. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee denied that motion, though she ultimately granted Campbell-Ewald's motion for summary judgment on unrelated derivative sovereign immunity grounds. On appeal by Gomez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that neither Gomez's individual claims nor his class claims were moot after he rejected Campbell-Ewald's Rule 68 offer. The panel relied on that circuit's prior precedents and distinguished the Supreme Court's opinion on FLSA claims in Genesis Healthcare as inapplicable to Rule 23 actions. The panel also rejected Campbell-Ewald's other arguments for summary judgment, including its "novel" theory of immunity, and remanded to the district court for additional proceedings. On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Campbell-Ewald's petition for certiorari. Second Circuit The Supreme Court's ruling in this case may be particularly welcome in the Second Circuit, where the court has painted an overly complicated and unsettled picture in this area. On the narrow question of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots a plaintiff's individual claims, the Second Circuit recently clarified that it does not. In Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, the court clarified that a plaintiff's claims do not become moot when a defendant makes a Rule 68 offer of complete relief, but rather, when the court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff according to the terms of the offer. The court noted that "[i]f the parties agree that a judgment should be entered against the defendant, then the district court should enter such a judgment" and "[a]bsent such agreement, however, the district court should not enter judgment against the defendant if it does not provide complete relief." In short, it is the district court's entry of judgment that moots the plaintiff's claim, not the defendant's Rule 68 offer. Moreover, because the Tanasi panel found that the unaccepted offer of judgment did not render moot the plaintiff's individual claims, the court expressly declined to decide whether such an unaccepted offer would render moot the plaintiff's claims on behalf of the putative class. That question remains an open one in the Second Circuit. Unfortunately, the clarity ends there. As noted, the Tanasi panel ruled that absent the parties' agreement that judgment should be entered against the defendant, "the district court should not enter judgment against the defendant if [the rejected offer of judgment] does not provide complete relief." In other words, the court appeared to suggest that a plaintiff must agree that judgment should be entered against the defendant before any default judgment may be entered and the plaintiff's claims rendered moot as a result. The apparent requirement that a plaintiff must agree to the entry of a default judgment after rejecting a Rule 68 offer stems from McCauley v. Trans Union, in which the plaintiff did not raise any class allegations, yet nonetheless rejected the defendant's Rule 68 offer of complete relief in part because it included a confidentiality provision. At oral argument before the Second Circuit, the parties agreed that if the district court entered a default judgment against the defendant, both parties would be satisfied: The plaintiff would receive the relief he sought, the defendant would not have to litigate the case further, and the outcome would be neither confidential nor preclusive. Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that the Rule 68 offer itself did not moot the plaintiff's claims, but that the district court should enter default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and enforce the offer's substantive terms. Nonetheless, despite the apparent holdings in McCauley and Tanasi, in a summary order issued after Tanasi, the Second Circuit has indicated that district courts retain the discretion to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff according to a rejected Rule 68 offer's terms, even absent the plaintiff's agreement. In Hepler v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the court concluded that "the court should (absent additional procedural complications) enter judgment pursuant to the terms of [the Rule 68] offer, with or without the plaintiff's consent." Thus, notwithstanding the murky language of Tanasi cited above, the law of the Second Circuit appears to be that a complete Rule 68 offer can lead to an individual plaintiff's claims being rendered moot through the entry of judgment according to the offer's terms, even absent the plaintiff's agreement. As noted, whether that analysis changes in the context of a putative class action under Rule 23 remains an open question under Second Circuit law. Implications Campbell-Ewald has major practical implications for class action litigants. If the court reverses the Ninth Circuit, it could hold that a rejected Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots a putative class plaintiff's ability to bring claims on behalf of himself and a class. Under such a rule, class action defendants would be armed with a powerful tool to end the cases against them quickly. By offering the individually named plaintiffs everything they seek, defendants could avoid lengthy litigation expenses and any potential classwide exposure. By contrast, if the court affirms the Ninth Circuit, it could ensure that, no matter where class action plaintiffs bring their claims, defendants cannot employ Rule 68 to moot the litigation. Regardless of what it holds, the court is all but guaranteed to reverse the law of at least one circuit, and class action litigants will have to plan accordingly. ********* 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 * * *