/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150812.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 160 Headlines 15TH STREET CUT: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages 850 INVESTORS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary ABBOTT LABS: Can File Motion to Dismiss Similac Class Action ABBOTT LABORATORIES: BC Court Denies Cert. to Sibutramine Suit ADAPTIVE MARKETING: Sued in Cal. Over Unauthorized Fund Transfer ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Springblade Shoe ALAMEDA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Taxing on Phone Bills ALLIANCE TANK: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Debt Collection Violation AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies APOLLO EDUCATION: 2 Ex-University of Phoenix Employees File Suit APOLLO EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Paredes" Case Still Pending APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Azich" Class Action in E.D. Cal. APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Suit in N.D. Cal. APOLLO EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Held in Teamsters Case APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Case Voluntarily Dismissed APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ARCH RESOURCES: 9th Cir. Sends Wage-and-Hour Suit to State Court ARM & HAMMER: Sept. 2 Claims Filing Deadline in Class Settlement AWM FINANCIAL: Faces "Dees" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation BANGLADESH MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Officers' Election BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Scott+Scott Files 2nd Amended Complaint BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Nguyen" Case Engaging in Discovery BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Ongoing BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Stayed BARNES & NOBLE: To Appeal Remand Order in "Carag" Case BARNES & NOBLE: Settlement in "Trimmer" Case Approved BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Product Labels BOOKS-A-MILLION: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Proposed Family Merger CAIRO, GA: Settles Probation Company Suit CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in TCPA Case CASEY'S GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in "Hot Fuel" Case Held CASEY'S GENERAL: To Defend Against FCRA Action in Missouri CBM INC: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces "Larkin" Suit Over Health Net Merger CHC GROUP: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in New York Courts CHEETAH'S: Ex-Strippers Obtain Class Certification in Labor Suit CHINA FINANCE: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Strippers Sue Over Unfair Pay Practices COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016 COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice, Discovery Yet in Lawsuit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Ellzey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CONNECTICUT: Non-Union State Employees Wins Class Suit CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages CVS HEALTH: Hausfeld & Stein Mitchell File Class Action in Calif. DCOMM INC: "Neill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DEVINE & SON: Faces "Saunders" Suit for Failure to Pay Min. Wage DLM STATUTORY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Stotler" Suit Claims EBAY: Sellers May Get Refunds from Recurring Fees EXCALIBUR SPECIAL: Ontario Court Affirms Denial of Certification FAMILY DOLLAR: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in in North Carolina MDL FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement Payments in "Hegab" Case Have Been Made FAMILY DOLLAR: 3rd Circuit Affirms Decision in "Itterly" Case FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Case FAMILY DOLLAR: Briefing Done in "Steingruber" Case Dismissal Bid FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered "Scott" Case to Insurer FAMILY DOLLAR: To Defend Against 3 Suits Over Dollar Tree Merger FAMILY DOLLAR: Working to Evaluate Allegations in "Moore" Action FRESHPOINT OF SOUTH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GOOGLE INC: Scores Win in Android Users' Class Suit HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Faces "Recarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HERBALIFE: Former Distributors Ask Judge to Reconsider Decision HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Approved HEWLETT PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Engaged in Discovery HEWLETT PACKARD: Plaintiffs in "Benedict" File Class Cert. Bid HEWLETT PACKARD: Approval Hearing Held in Securities Case Deal HEWLETT PACKARD: 2nd Amended Complaint in ERISA Case Dismissed HOMEJOY INC: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HONDA MOTOR: Product Recall Cases Transferred to Florida HSBC BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Undisclosed Maintenance Fee ILLINIOS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Richmond-Davis Suit IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Khaimov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Class Action JOHN DOE CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JOHN WM: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Jones" Suit Claims KETTLE: Class Suit Settlement Over Chips Misleading Labels KNOWLES CORP: Sept. 15 Trial Set in Shareholder Case v. Audience LENOVO GROUP: Firms Brawl Over Lead Counsel Slots in MDL LIBERTY TAX: Parties in ERC Class Action Reached Settlement LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Remains Subject to Conditions LEVY ACQUISITION: Reached Settlement of "Tomasulo" Claims LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Suit Over Top Executives' Exit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Defective Product MAGNUM HUNTER: Dismissal of Securities Case Affirmed MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Seader" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plans MASTER DOOR: Removes "Velunza" Class Suit to S.D. Florida MATTY'S BAR: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MDC PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach MORGANS HOTEL: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Suit Claims NAT'L HOCKEY: Commissioner Gives Deposition in Concussion Suit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit NITRO FLUIDS: "Sheard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deal Has Final Approval PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation PC ADVANTAGE: "Camilleri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Role in Ponzi Scheme PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces "Albanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRESSURE CONTROL: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RAM'S HEAD: Ex-Pres. Gets 2-Year Jail Over Bathroom Recordings RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rockaway" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective HVAC Systems RK LIQUORS: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Levi Korinsky Files Securities Suit SAKUMA BROTHERS: Farmworkers Entitled to Break Pay SIGNAL INT'L: Agreed to Pay $20MM in Trafficking Suits, Docs Say SOLARWINDS INC: GPM Files Securities Class Action in Texas SPOKEO INC: Media, Tech Cos. ask SCOTUS to Restrict Class Suits STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval STATE FARM: 5th Circ. Upholds Verdict in Whistleblower Suit TEXAS: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Suits Against 53 Cities TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation UBER: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach VASCO DATA: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Financial Reports W2007 GRACE: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Stipulation WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Reached Settlement in "Freedman" Case WILLOWTOWN INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Schools Lose Contraception Coverage Case VICTORIA, AU: 2013 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit X-L FOODS: Settlement Worked Out in 2012 E. Coli Outbreak Suit ********* 15TH STREET CUT: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Hilton Mason, and others similarly-situated v. 15th Street Cut Rate Liquors LLC, Ida Gonzalez and Steve Gonzalez, Case No. 8:15- cv-01719 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a liquor store in Tampa, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com 850 INVESTORS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Kozin, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. 850 Investors LLC and Seneca Property and Asset Mgmt., LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-11396 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Chicago tenants the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) Summary as made for inspection and copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and renewed. 850 Investors LLC operates a residential apartment "complex" containing approximately 500 residential rental dwelling units located at 850 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60611. Seneca Property and Asset Mgmt., LLC prepares and offers rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants, on behalf of Defendant owners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Krolik, Esq. AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924-0278 Facsimile: (312) 650-8241 ABBOTT LABS: Can File Motion to Dismiss Similac Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge is allowing Abbott Laboratories to file a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in May over its Similac Advance Organic Infant Formula. In June, attorneys at Winston & Straw asked U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen, of the Eastern District of New York, for permission to file its dismissal motion. It listed eight arguments it anticipates making. The lawsuit claims 26 of the ingredients in the organic formulas are prohibited in organic foods. It claims the ingredients are "irradiated substances, synthetic compounds, or produced from hazardous substances." After the plaintiffs' attorneys, led by Todd Garber of Finkelstein Blankinship in White Plains, N.Y., wrote that Abbott's request to file the motion should be denied, Chen sided with Abbott Laboratories at a conference on July 9. An amended complaint was to be filed Thursday, Aug. 6, and the motion to dismiss it is due Aug. 27. Arguments that Abbott Laboratories are planning are: -- Federal law preempts all of the plaintiffs' claims because an independent organic certifier acting as an agent for the U.S. Department of Agriculture has certified that the formula qualifies as organic under federal law; -- Federal law allows the ingredients that are the subject of the plaintiffs' lawsuit; -- The Department of Agriculture has primary jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs' claims; -- Plaintiffs can't complain they were tricked into buying products with ingredients they didn't want because the ingredients were listed on the labels of the products; -- The New York consumer fraud claim fails because Abbott Laboratories has complied with federal regulations and because plaintiffs can't claim they would not have purchased the product but for the alleged deception; -- The express warranty count does not state a claim because courts have held that labels are not warranties; -- The claim for unjust enrichment duplicates and rehashes other claims; and -- None of the claims are pleaded with particularity. "The complaint contains just one paragraph about each plaintiff, with only the bare factual detail that is set out at the beginning of this letter," the letter says. "Plaintiffs do not allege the required who, what, when, where and how of the supposed fraudulent conduct." The plaintiffs' letter to Chen listed their counter-arguments in detail. They say federal law doesn't preempt their claims because the non-agricultural ingredients that they are challenging are not included on the USDA's "National List." "(M)any of Abbott's ingredient were petitioned to be added to the National List, and explicitly refused by the USDA, stressing yet again that it is not allowed in organic infant formula," the plaintiffs wrote. Those ingredients are taurine, l-carnitine, beta-carotene, ascorbyl palmitate, lycopene, lutein and nucleotides. Also, the plaintiffs say Abbott's claim that it complied with federal regulations is "disingenuous." ABBOTT LABORATORIES: BC Court Denies Cert. to Sibutramine Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Gagne, Esq. -- mgagne@mccarthy.ca -- Emmanuelle Poupart, Esq. -- epoupart@mccarthy.ca -- Julie-Martine Loranger, Esq. -- jmloranger@mccarthy.ca -- Steeves Bujold, Esq. -- sbujold@mccarthy.ca -- and Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. -- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault, in an article for Mondaq, said that in Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia overturned certification of a class action on behalf of all Canadian consumers of sibutramine, a weight-loss drug. It was alleged that sibutramine increased the risk of cardiovascular events. The Plaintiffs' evidence on general causation was a trial that had demonstrated that sibutramine increased risks of cardiovascular events on patient with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. However, evidence was adduced that sibutramine ought not be prescribed to patients with such pre-existing diseases. Therefore, the Appellants pleaded that there was no evidence that sibutramine causes or contributes to cardiovascular events among class members, i.e. patients for whom it should have been prescribed and to whom it was marketed. The Court of Appeal accepted the argument that the Plaintiffs had failed to adduce some evidence of a workable methodology for how the proposed common issue of general causation could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The Court also accepted the argument that the remaining common issues were heavily dependent on the general causation common issue, and thus could not be resolved on a class- wide basis either. Charlton is the first class action involving a prescription drug that has been denied certification in British Columbia. This case provides defendants with an important roadmap for how to defeat the certification of pharmaceutical class actions in common law provinces. ADAPTIVE MARKETING: Sued in Cal. Over Unauthorized Fund Transfer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Peart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Adaptive Marketing LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:15-cv-01514-FMO-AJW (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' illegal actions of debiting the Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts. Adaptive Marketing LLC operates a marketing services company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Springblade Shoe ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a new class action lawsuit charges that Adidas released a defective running shoe that splits in the middle after minimal use. The Springblade shoe's debut in 2013 was accompanied by an aggressive marketing campaign billing it as the next step in running, papers charge. The shoe cost around $200 and was the product of six years of development, according to documents. But the bouncy design had a seam in the middle that frequently ripped from the sole, papers charge. Edward Ruffo, of Westchester, who filed the suit, claims he bought "several" pairs of the Springblade for use on a treadmill, and that each one fell apart the same way. A separate pair he used outdoors "failed after a single use," papers charge. He says Adidas failed to respond to his demands for a refund. Documents cite customer reviews online indicating Ruffo was far from the only one to have the problem. "It's such an obvious defect. This has been going on all over the place," Mr. Ruffo's attorney Tom Giuffra said. The suit seeks damages to be determined at trial. An Adidas spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment. ALAMEDA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Taxing on Phone Bills ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Alameda is illegally taxing its citizens' cellphone bills at 7.5 percent, an irate resident claims in a class action. Lead plaintiff Clyde Grossman claims the city charges a utility users tax on services that were recently made nontaxable, such as communications billed at rates that do not vary with distance and transmission time. Since the city adopted the federal excise tax definition of taxable telephone services in 2002, Grossman says, five federal appellate courts have held that "a telephonic communication for which there is a toll charge that varies with elapsed transmission time and not distance (time-only service) is not taxable toll telephone service." The city's utility-users tax should not apply to mobile phone services or charges for "bundled service," according to the complaint. But the city continues to add a 7.5 percent tax to taxpayers' monthly cell phone bills, Grossman says. He sued the city in Alameda County Court. Grossman claims that after 2006 the city's utility-users tax on telephone services not based on time and distance has been "illegal and unlawful." He claims that taxpayers were unaware that the tax was illegal because the city represented it as proper. He says he "reasonably relied upon the city's misrepresentations and omissions by paying the properly imposed tax from 2006 to present," and that "the city's continued imposition and collection of the (tax) is an ongoing violation, constituting a new violation upon each collection." He seeks class certification, refunds of all the improperly collected taxes, with interest, and an injunction against it. He is represented by Thomas Girardi, with Girardi Keese in Los Angeles. Neither Girardi nor Alameda's city attorney could be reached for comment. Alameda, pop. 76,000, is on an island in the East Bay, closer to Oakland than San Francisco. ALLIANCE TANK: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Eliseo Valeriano Cruz Bravo a/k/a Valeriano Bravo, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Alliance Tank Fabricators, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02176 (S.D. Tex., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Alliance Tank Fabricators, LLC is engaged in the business of welding and fabricating oil drums and other products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Faheem NazarAli Prasla, Esq. PRASLA LAW FIRM, PLLC 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 625 Houston, TX 77036 Telephone: (713) 400-2444 Facsimile: (713) 400-2448 E-mail: faheem@praslalaw.com - and - Zulfiqar N. Prasla, Esq. PRASLA LAW FIRM, PLLC 6200 Savoy Drive, Ste 625 Houston, TX 77036 Telephone: (713) 400-2444 E-mail: ZNP@praslalaw.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Debt Collection Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Annemarie Biolsi, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01587 (E.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks statutory damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in its business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer M. McMahon and Edward C. Phillips, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06601 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airlines in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq. Brian H. Eldridge, Esq. SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 233 South Wacker Drive Willis Tower-Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 645-7800 Facsimile: (312) 645-7711 E-mail: shart@smsm.com rmclaughlin@smsm.com beldridge@smsm.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com - and - Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq. Amanda L. Riddle, Esq. Jennifer E. McGuire, Esq. COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI & RIDDLE LLP 700 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 669 Millbrae, CA 94030 Telephone: (650) 871-5666 Facsimile: (650) 871-4144 E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com alr@coreylaw.com jem@coreylaw.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772, Ext. 1001 Direct: (415) 805-8532 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlcvine.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03467-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to reduce the supply of seats in order to artificially inflate, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airlines in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack W. Lee, Esq. Derek G. Howard, Esq. Aron K. Liang, Esq. Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com dhoward@minamitamaki.com aliang@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.om AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Diresta, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Company, Case No. 157806/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29, 2015), arises from the Defendants' illegal and deceptive business practices in attempting to collect credit card debt from individuals using false information and documentation. The Defendants operate a financial services company headquartered in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy DiResta, Esq. 30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301 Long Beach, NY 11561 Telephone: (516) 432-0150 Facsimile: (516) 345.1678 E-mail: timothydiresta@optimum.net APOLLO EDUCATION: 2 Ex-University of Phoenix Employees File Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that two former University of Phoenix employees filed on June 9, 2015, an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their positions with the University in violation of Kentucky and federal law. In this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The University of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court), plaintiffs also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage and hour law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other required wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims, they seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all individuals employed by the University within the past five years who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the class in connection with the wage and hour claims. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on the information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Paredes" Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss the newly filed complaint in the case filed by Ashley Paredes remains pending. On November 13, 2014, Ashley Paredes filed a class action complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group, Inc. alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of California law. Captioned Paredes v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., the action was initially filed in California Superior Court in San Bernadino County, but was subsequently removed to Federal District Court in the Central District of California. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of the class of individuals who enrolled in the University's educational programs for Psychology, Education, Nursing, Health Administration and Criminal Justice, and Technology from November 10, 2011 through November 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that the University misled class members regarding transferability of credits earned at the University and by promising or guaranteeing employment upon completion of studies. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the class. On March 23, 2015, the district court granted our motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which she filed on April 24, 2015. "On May 11, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's newly filed complaint, and that motion remains pending before the district court," the Company said. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Azich" Class Action in E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that George Azich filed on May 27, 2015, a class action lawsuit, Azich v. The University of Phoenix, 2:15-at-616 (E.D. Cal.) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that University of Phoenix violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting class members on their cellular telephones using automated dialing technology without obtaining their express written consent. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the putative class. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Suit in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Thomas Barton and Leon Abdullah filed on February 28, 2015, a class action complaint, Barton et al. v. The University of Phoenix, 1:15-cv- 939-NJV (N.D. Cal.) against University of Phoenix in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that University of Phoenix violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting plaintiffs on their cellular telephones using automated dialing technology without their express written consent. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiffs and other members of the putative class. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Held in Teamsters Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that a final approval hearing for the settlement was scheduled for July 28, 2015, in the case filed by Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds. On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint alleging that we and certain of our current and former directors and officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB. On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and, at the request of the parties, the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on April 30, 2014. On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court granted on April 14, 2015. A final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July 28, 2015. "We placed an immaterial settlement amount in a common fund account during the third quarter of fiscal year 2015, which is included in restricted cash and cash equivalents on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of May 31, 2015. The settlement is subject to final court approval and we intend to pursue reimbursement of the settlement amount from our insurance carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery efforts is uncertain at this point," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Case Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Carmin Tandy, who was previously employed as a faculty member at University of Phoenix, filed on December 24, 2014, a class action complaint against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and University of Phoenix alleging violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to the manner in which University of Phoenix faculty in California were compensated. Captioned Tandy v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., the action was initially filed in California Superior Court in San Diego County, but was subsequently removed to Federal District Court in the Southern District of California. On February 25, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint. APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Mundy Gonzalez filed on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint against University of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Captioned Gonzalez v. The University of Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279, the action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 13, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint. ARCH RESOURCES: 9th Cir. Sends Wage-and-Hour Suit to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed wage-and-hour class action against a California staffing agency should be heard in state court because the named plaintiff's individual claims can't be weighed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a U.S. appeals court ruled on July 30. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court erred in finding that Porfiria Yocupicio's 2014 suit against Arch Resources Group should be removed to federal court because her claims added up to more than $5 million. ARM & HAMMER: Sept. 2 Claims Filing Deadline in Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Hardy, writing for Top Class Actions, reported that a claim is at the center of another class action lawsuit involving Arm and Hammer Essentials deodorant. Allegations are the deodorant's claims of "natural" were misleading. You can get a $4 cash refund for up to 5 units. The deadline to file a claim is September 2, 2015. Arm and Hammer denies wrongdoing. AWM FINANCIAL: Faces "Dees" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- David B. Dees, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AWM Financial Services LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01440 (D. Ariz., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com BANGLADESH MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Officers' Election ----------------------------------------------------------- Abul Azad, MD., Syed Rahman, M.D., Masoom Qadeer, M.D., Waled Chowdhury, M.D., Shah Giashudd1n, M.D., Mohammud Alam, M.D., Ziauddin Ahmed, M.D., and others similarly situated v. The Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc., Case No. 9180/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29, 2015), seeks to enjoin the Defendant or their representatives from proceeding with the election or any election of officers, executive committee, directors, commissioners, principals and the like of the Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc. The Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc. is a non-profit organization whose membership is composed of medical professionals of Bangladeshi descent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ferdusi Z. Chowdhury, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FERDUSI Z. CHOWDHURY 37-28 75th Street, Suite 1D Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (347) 808-8180 E-mail: fclawnynj@gmail.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- United Food And Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tristate Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05931-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial products based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian financial services and banking company with its principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Esq. John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM PC 425 East 63rd Street New York, NY 10065 Telephone: (919) 749-3980 E-mail: kpickle@radicelawfirm.com jradice@radicelawfirm.com - and - Eric L. Young, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com - and - Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. David F. Sorensen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net ecramer@bm.net dsorensen@bm.net BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Scott+Scott Files 2nd Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a proposed class in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.). When the original complaint was filed in November of 2013, plaintiffs alleged that since 2003, financial institutions had conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in the $5.4 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market. As a result of cooperation obtained from certain settling Defendants, the complaint now alleges a broader conspiracy -- one that affected dozens of currency pairs, including the seven pairs with the highest market volume, and impacted trading both over the counter and on exchanges. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that from as early as 2003 and continuing through 2013, the world's major banks used multiple chat rooms -- with names such as "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club," and "The Mafia" -- to communicate with each other. As the Complaint explains, "[b]eing a member of certain chat rooms was by invitation only, indicating the secret nature of this conduct. These electronic chat rooms replaced the classic, smoke-filled backrooms of the past." In these chat rooms, defendants used code words to avoid detection. The plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the FX market in at least three separate respects. First, defendants fixed prices by agreeing to widen bid/ask spreads on FX spot trades. Bid/ask spreads represent the difference between the price at which a bank will buy a currency and the price at which it will sell it, and are a source of profit for banks. As the Complaint describes, "there are thousands of communications involving multiple Defendants reflecting discussions about FX spreads." It goes on to explain that "[t]hese communications show traders at more than 30 banks, including Defendants, participated in interbank chats where traders coordinated and exchanged information about spreads or customer orders." Second, plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated FX benchmark rates, including the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates and European Central Bank's FX Reference Rates, as well as CME/Emerging Markets Traders Association Russian ruble/U.S. dollar rates. As the new Complaint explains "[c]hat room communications demonstrate Defendants exchanged confidential customer information and coordinated their trading to manipulate these key rates." Finally, defendants exchanged key confidential customer information in an effort to trigger client stop loss and limit orders. They exploited these types of orders by manipulating prices to move the market to levels that triggered the stop-loss or limit orders. In addition to adding broader allegations of unlawful behavior, the Complaint accuses four defendants that were not previously named. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Societe Generale S.A., and Standard Chartered plc, have been added to the list of banks that the Complaint alleges conspired to manipulate the FX market, bringing the total number of defendants to sixteen. "Our complaint makes clear that the conspiracy to manipulate the FX market was long-running and pervasive," commented David R. Scott, Managing Partner of Scott+Scott. He added, "we hope that that our new complaint helps to rid this market of unlawful and harmful manipulation." The new Complaint follows four settlements that Scott+Scott previously announced, all of which included cooperation provisions as well as monetary relief. In May 2015, Scott+Scott announced a settlement with Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. that requires it to pay $394 million, while also providing cooperation to the plaintiffs in their prosecution of claims against the remaining defendants. In April 2015, Scott+Scott announced a settlement with Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. that includes $180 million in monetary relief and cooperation. In March 2015, Scott+Scott announced that it had reached a settlement with UBS AG, UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC for $135 million, in addition to their cooperation. In January 2015, the firm announced a settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPM Chase Bank, N.A. for $99.5 million, in addition to their cooperation. All told, the settlements disclosed to date amount to $808,500,000. Scott+Scott prosecutes high-stakes antitrust and securities lawsuits throughout the United States on behalf of institutional investors, businesses, and corporations. It has offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Ohio, and the firm recently announced the opening of its first European office in London. BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Nathan Hale, and all others similarly-situated v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Case No. 2:15-cv-05659 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Barclays Bank Delaware creates customized, co-branded credit card programs for travel, entertainment, retail, affinity, educational, and financial institutions in the U.S. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Nguyen" Case Engaging in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., the parties are engaging in discovery and a trial date of May 3, 2016, Barnes & Noble said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23, 2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 16, 2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss to the extent certain California unfair business practices and false advertising claims sought restitution or injunctive relief and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. The surviving claims are for breach of contract, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and violation of two New York consumer protection statutes. The parties are engaging in discovery and pursuant to the court's scheduling order dated December 17, 2014, as amended on March 31, 2015 and June 12, 2015. All dates for the case have been scheduled, including the deadline for plaintiff to file for class certification of July 30, 2015, and a trial date of May 3, 2016. BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s second motion to dismiss the PIN Pad Litigation is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any recent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them if further activity arises. In addition, payment card companies and associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or other remedies against the Company. BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- In an appeal related to the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., plaintiff's opening brief was due July 8, 2015 and Barnes & Noble's opposition was due August 7, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014; under the current appeal briefing schedule, plaintiff's opening brief was due July 8, 2015 and Barnes & Noble's opposition is due August 7, 2015. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. On January 14, 2015, Barnes & Noble removed the action to federal court based on new United States Supreme Court authority, and the district court remanded the action on April 1, 2015. On April 13, 2015, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the remand decision. The Ninth Circuit denied the discretionary review and Barnes & Noble is considering a petition for an en banc review. BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Stayed --------------------------------------------- All proceedings in the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., remain stayed pending appeal in the Lina action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. BARNES & NOBLE: To Appeal Remand Order in "Carag" Case ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Company anticipates filing a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the federal court's remand decision, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non- exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). On September 2, 2014, the state court denied Plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel based on their prior role in the Lina matter. On January 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to federal court based on new US Supreme Court authority. On June 11, 2015, the federal court remanded the case to Sacramento Superior Court. There are no existing deadlines on calendar. The Company anticipates filing a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the federal court's remand decision. * * * District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned CASSANDRA CARAG, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.: 2:15-CV-00115-KJM-CKD, (E.D. Cal.). A copy of Judge Mueller's Order dated June 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/8AoEBJfrom Leagle.com Plaintiff worked for defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately May 2002 through April 2012. The complaint defines the proposed class as follows: "All current and former California-based (currently residing in California with the intent to reside in California indefinitely) hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals employed by any of the defendants at a 'Barnes & Noble' store located within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this complaint to final judgment." Plaintiff, in its motion to remand, argued that defendants' removal is untimely and the calculation of the amount in controversy is based on "speculation and conjecture." Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- David Elliot Webb Gonzalez, Esq. -- elliot@lfjpc.com -- and Jill Jessica Parker, Esq. -- jill@lfjpc.com -- of Lawyers for Justice, PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Cassandra Carag Heather M. Sager, Esq. -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price (CA), LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Barnes & Noble, Inc. BARNES & NOBLE: Settlement in "Trimmer" Case Approved ----------------------------------------------------- The settlement agreement in the case, Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble, has been approved by the Court and the case has been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015. On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Court") alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010, when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The Company opposed Trimmer's motion to certify the collective action and class action. While those motions were pending, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached a settlement of the case on behalf of three plaintiffs (rather than a class). The settlement agreement was approved by the Court in May 2015 and the case was dismissed with prejudice. BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Chandrasiri G. Mudun Kotuwage, and all others similarly situated v. Bilt Petroleum, Inc., NSS Petroleum Inc., Amrik S. Dhillon and Nirmal Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-04374 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other relief available in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Minimum Wage Act of the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants own and operate a gas station doing business as Gulf and located at Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER 277 Broadway Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Product Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vicky Gan, writing for Citylab, reports that plaintiffs suing industry giants Blue Diamond and WhiteWave -- the makers of Almond Breeze and Silk, respectively, allege that these brands of almond milk contain only 2 percent almonds, and that the companies have falsely advertised these products for years. The class-action lawsuit draws on information available for the U.K. versions of Blue Diamond and WhiteWave almond milks; their labels clearly indicate 2 percent almond content. It is entirely possible that the U.S. and U.K. versions have different formulas and that the almond milk on this side of the pond is more or less almond-y. But either way, the companies don't disclose that information to consumers in the U.S.-and the FDA doesn't require them to. (After all, percentages could reveal a brand's secret recipe.) Should you feel cheated by the paltry proportion of almonds in your non-dairy alternative? Maybe, if your concern is truth in advertising. As FoodNavigator points out, this case bears some resemblance to POM Wonderful's lawsuit against Coca-Cola, which alleges that the corporate giant misled the public about its Minute Maid pomegranate-blueberry juice. The Minute Maid product contained only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry juice, compared to POM's 85 percent pomegranate and 15 percent blueberry blend. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2014 that the lawsuit could proceed -- even though Coke's label technically complied with FDA regulations -- and POM could seek damages for sales lost to its cheaper, diluted competitor. While that decision opened the door to lawsuits on FDA-compliant labels, it doesn't guarantee a victory against Blue Diamond and WhiteWave. Unlike POM vs. Coke, the almond milk case centers on customers feeling duped by the products' branding. Almond Breeze and Silk promise wholesome, plant-based nutrition, the plaintiffs allege; instead, they give you filtered water with a splash of almonds and thickening agents. If that bothers you, consider this: Beer, coffee, Diet Coke, dairy milk -- most beverages, really -- are mostly water. Almond milk is held together by additional emulsifiers and stabilizers -- but so are most processed foodstuffs. The relatively meager allotment of almonds in conventional almond milks should not be news to anyone. And if you like the empirically watery taste of almond milk, by all means, drink on. On the other hand, if you're ready to swear off almond milk because of its environmental impact, you should still think twice before converting to dairy milk. It's easy to pick on almond milk, a watered-down version of the nut that has become a scapegoat for the California drought. But almonds, while a significant drain on the state's water supply, are not even the thirstiest agricultural product out there. Yes, it takes one gallon of water to produce one almond -- but it takes 880 gallons of water to produce one gallon of dairy milk. Almonds may drink up 10 percent of California's water, but more than 30 percent of it goes toward raising livestock. As Slate's Eric Holthaus puts it: "Replacing a glass of cow's milk with almond milk is a net gain for the environment." And that's true whether almond milk is 98 percent water or not. BOOKS-A-MILLION: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Proposed Family Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Vance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Books-A-Million, Inc., et al., Case No. 11343-VCL (Del. Ch., July 28, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Books-A-Million, Inc. to enjoin the sale of the Company to Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc., for unfair consideration and through an unfair process. Books-A-Million, Inc. is a book retailer primarily located in the eastern United States and operates both superstores and traditional bookstores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 CAIRO, GA: Settles Probation Company Suit ----------------------------------------- Karen Murphy, writing for Times Enterprise, reported that an alleged victim of Red Hills Community Probation (RHCP) has accepted a $25,000 settlement from the City of Cairo. T.W. Green Jr. reached the individual settlement with the City of Cairo, but according to his lawyer, K. Todd Butler, "his claim against RHCP still exists." "The city offered (Mr.) Green an amount he couldn't turn down," said Butler, "and Green dismissed his individual claim against Cairo." Butler said, "Anybody who was a member of the class can still make individual claims against Cairo or RHCP." Butler said Raleigh Rawlins, who represented Cairo in the matter, filed the motion early to settle, and the order was issued by the Grady Superior Court late by Judge H. Arthur McLane, of Valdosta. According to Butler, judges A. Wallace Cato and J. Kevin Chason recused themselves from the case. The class-action lawsuit, filed in April, alleged false imprisonment, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and a "pattern of racketeering activity," against Red Hills Community Probation (RHCP), LLC, its CEO Margaret B. Crutchfield and the City of Cairo. This suit followed on the heels of a suit filed April 9 by the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta at the U.S. District Court in Albany against RHCP, Crutchfield, two of its probation officers, Pelham Chief of Police Nealie McCormick, Bainbridge Public Safety Director Eric Miller, the cities of Pelham and Bainbridge, as well as several Pelham and Bainbridge police officers. The two suits are separate and not connected. Butler said the two suits arose "out of nearly identical facts and the same pattern of conduct. It's just a different set of people." Green told Butler that on May 14, 2014, he pleaded guilty to possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and was sentenced to 12 months probation and a fine of $1,248. Immediately after being sentenced, Green met with Crutchfield or an employee who told Green he had to make an initial payment of $400. According to the suit, if he failed to do so, "the armed, uniformed police power of the City of Cairo would be utilized to jail him until he made the demanded initial payment." Green did not have $400 with him to pay. After he was sentenced and fined, according to the suit, RHCP used Cairo police to detain Green, move him from the courtroom to the Grady County Courthouse holding cell and then transported him to the Grady County jail where he was booked. The suit claims Green was held "against his will and until a family member brought $400 to the jail to re-purchase the liberty granted to him..." Butler said RHCP "has no legal authority to jail people." He said Green came to him, upset that he was jailed because he couldn't make the initial payment. "(Mr.) Green knew that was wrong," Butler said. The Georgia Constitution provides that " 'there shall be no imprisonment for debt' in Article I of the Bill of Rights. The suit alleged actions of RHCP were not unique to the Green case but a policy of the probation company. It said RHCP, "routinely falsely notifies newly sentenced probationers that they must make an initial payment against total amounts owed for fines, probation's supervision fees or other costs charged to the newly sentenced probationer." They also routinely threatened and used police to jail them if they fail to make demanded initial payments, according to the suit. Red Hills contracted with local governments to supervise probation cases in municipal courts of Bainbridge, Cairo, Pelham and Whigham. Joshua Bell, Grady County State Court judge and municipal court judge for those courts, gave notice he terminated his working relationship with RHCP and CEO Margaret Crutchfield, on May 11, 2015. RHCP went out of business in June. Cairo City Council approved a release agreement between the City of Cairo and RHCP after a brief closed session. CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in TCPA Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and James Unger, Esq. -- junger@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, said that last year in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., No. 13-55486, 2014 WL 4654478 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that offers of complete relief made to individual plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 do not moot either individual or class claims. This holding mirrors decisions by the Second and Eleventh Circuits but conflicts with decisions by the Third and Seventh Circuits. Now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to address the circuit split, dialing up an issue with implications for class actions generally, including false advertising class actions. Gomez, the named plaintiff in the 2014 Ninth Circuit case, alleges that advertising firm Campbell-Ewald sent him, and approximately 100,000 others, unsolicited recruiting messages for the U.S. Navy in violation of the T.C.P.A. Prior to class certification, Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez $1,503 as an offer of judgment under Rule 68. This offer was more than three times the statutory penalty per text message and at least equal to what Gomez could hope to obtain if his damage award were trebled. This, Campbell- Ewald argued, constituted complete relief and mooted Gomez's claim. But the Ninth Circuit held Gomez's suit could continue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address questions including whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim and whether the answer to that question differs when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under F.R.C.P. Rule 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before a class is certified. Advocates for the Ninth Circuit's position argue that a contrary decision could allow defendants to pull the plug on potential class actions by strategically picking off plaintiffs before class certification. On the other hand, many members of the class action defense bar have argued that such offers make plaintiffs whole and are mainly to the detriment of plaintiff's lawyers who seek large settlements (and resulting fees) further down the line. Whatever the Supreme Court decides is likely to have major implications for class actions generally. In the false advertising context, if the Court overturns the Ninth Circuit's decision and sides with Campbell-Ewald, potential defendants could receive a powerful new tool to defend against budding class actions at their earliest stages. Stay tuned for more analysis of the outcome and implications of this important case. CASEY'S GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in "Hot Fuel" Case Held --------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation". On November 20, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved the previously-reported settlement involving the Company, which when approved in final form by the Court following notice to the Class would result in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against Casey's in the multidistrict litigation. The preliminarily approved settlement includes, but is not limited to, a commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker" certain information on its fuel pumps and make a monetary payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the plaintiff class. The process of notice to the class began in February 2015 with notice being published in various media outlets including selected radio stations and newspapers. Objections and exclusions to the proposed settlement must be submitted electronically or postmarked by March 23, 2015. The Fairness Hearing to consider whether the settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate was held on June 9, 2015. CASEY'S GENERAL: To Defend Against FCRA Action in Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action recently filed in federal court in Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom Casey's obtained a consumer report for employment purposes in the last two years. Plaintiff alleges Casey's violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)'s stand-alone disclosure requirement. Casey's has obtained approximately 3,900 consumer reports in the last year. The FCRA provides for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Company does not believe it is liable to the plaintiff and intends to contest the matter vigorously. CBM INC: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ramona Estrada, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. CBM, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02661-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. CBM, Inc. is a Georgia corporation which provides janitorial services for various office and commercial properties throughout the metropolitan Atlanta area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Allen Pankey, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC Suite 200, 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway Atlanta, GA 30338-4122 Telephone: (770) 670-6250 Facsimile: (770) 670-6249 E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces "Larkin" Suit Over Health Net Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Larkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centene Corporation, et al., Case No. 11349-VCL (Del. Ch., July 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Health Net, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Health Net by Centene Corporation, through a flawed process and for inadequate consideration. Centene Corporation is a Delaware corporation that operates a healthcare enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on underinsured and uninsured individuals. Health Net, Inc. is a provider of managed health care services through health plans and government-sponsored managed care plans. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com dfarrell@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com imelamed@faruqilaw.com CHC GROUP: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in New York Courts ----------------------------------------------------------- CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that two securities lawsuits were recently brought against the Company: McCrory v. CHC Group et al. was filed on April 17, 2015 in New York Supreme Court (now removed to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York), and Rudman et al. v. CHC Group et al. was filed on May 15, 2015 in federal district court for the Southern District of New York. "Both complaints allege that the Company and others failed to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our major customers, Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain contracts due to the global stand-down of EC225 aircraft. Both complaints seek class treatment and unspecified damages," the Company said. The Company maintains adequate insurance to respond to these complaints. Moreover, the Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and will vigorously defend against them. CHEETAH'S: Ex-Strippers Obtain Class Certification in Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Saul, writing for New York Post, reports that a half-dozen ex-strippers just got a touch of class. A Manhattan judge on July 30 granted class-action status for their lawsuit against Midtown jiggle joint Cheetah's, opening the door for fellow pole-dancers to join the claim, which aims to collect pay and fees the women say they were cheated out of by the owner. The federal court judge ruled the six strippers showed that other entertainers at Cheetah's Gentleman's Club & Restaurant also had their rights violated by not being paid hourly wages, being required to share tips, having to pay "house fees" of up to $120 per shift, and not being reimbursed for uniform expenses. "From these statements, the Court 'can fairly infer' that other entertainers labored under similar working conditions," the judge wrote. CHINA FINANCE: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against China Finance Online Co., Ltd. ("China Finance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRJC), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until August 4, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. China Finance is an online financial services company based in the People's Republic of China. The complaint alleges that: (1) the most current Chinese government records show that Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao abruptly resigned from his positions at three important subsidiaries of China Finance over the past few months; (2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention of the Company's independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to announce his resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to China Finance for $25 million. When the truth was revealed, the stock dropped causing investors harm. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Strippers Sue Over Unfair Pay Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Sean Holstege, writing for USA Today, reported that about 120 exotic dancers are suing Christie's Cabaret, a Valley strip club, for what the performers claim are unfair labor practices, in what has become a growing and lucrative area of legal practice around the country. Days before the most recent hearing in the Christie's case, about 4,000 dancers in Florida won a $6 million settlement in an almost identical case. Houston-based law firm Kennedy Hodges brought both cases. The company also won a similar case in Dallas, has ongoing cases in North Carolina and Texas, and its attorneys have sued the Alaska Bush Co. and Bliss Show Club in Phoenix, said Beatriz Sosa- Morris, the attorney representing the Christie's dancers. Other firms have filed similar cases around the country in recent months. In the Phoenix metro area, Christie's dancers have banded together in a class-action labor-rights lawsuit in federal court, claiming that since 2011, clubs in Phoenix and Tempe and their corporate owners have illegally classified them as independent contractors, rather than employees. The suit, filed in May 2014, seeks to recover overtime pay and unpaid hourly minimum-wage earnings. Initially dancers also sued the Christie's in Glendale as well as sister clubs in Ohio and North Carolina. A federal judge ruled against hearing the action against out-of-state clubs, and attorneys are working to include Glendale dancers in the lawsuit. Lawyers for Christie's countered in U.S. District Court filings that the clubs have no record of some of the women ever working there. Lawyers also argued that the women mistakenly sued some wrong corporate entities and that they entered agreements to dance, knowing they were not employees. Records filed in court show that dancers are required to sign an "Independent Contractor Agreement," which states "Company and contractor intend to create an independent relationship," and were not entering a relationship as employer and employee. In essence, the dancers were paying fees to lease the stage, DJ, lighting and venue in exchange for being allowed to keep their tips. The dancers, and their attorney Sosa-Morris, describe a workplace where the dancers are routinely exploited and strict rules govern almost every aspect of their work shifts. "These clubs will just take, take, take from the dancers," Sosa- Morris said. "These dancers are a lot of times abused by the system and just tossed into the sex industry." La'Shaunta Cooper, in a written statement in court, said that she worked at the Tempe club for two years and that "the ultimate factors which control how much money we can make at Christie's Cabaret are largely out of our control." Cooper said in addition to required tips to the DJ, "house mom," bouncers and managers, she had to pay a set house fee as well as any fines for arriving late, leaving early or violating rules. Those rules are set forth in a seven-page document filed in court. Examples include: "no gum," "no negativity" and, "Don't talk about your personal problems to a customer. They are there to forget theirs." Generally, women are encouraged to dress and act in a way as to project a "classy" image and are discouraged from overtly sexual, lewd or trashy costumes or acts, according to the document. Sosa-Morris said she's heard stories of some dancers owing more money than they make in a shift and having to work off debt or visit the clubs' ATMs to have enough for another fee at the end of their shift. Christie's lawyers declined comment for this story, but the club maintains in court records that it has no control over the dancers, who simply lease out the space. The area of law is nothing new. Exotic dancers began winning similar cases 20 years ago. Still, Sosa- Morris said, the policies at Christie's have been mirrored at strip clubs across the country for years. What's changed, she said, is "the dancers are becoming more aware of their rights." Nor is the treatment of independent contractors in labor law unique to strips clubs. Similar arrangements exist with cab drivers, delivery jobs and the trucking industry, as well as in some heavy-construction industries in which skilled workers, such as oil-field workers and welders, move from place to place to follow the work. Employers don't pay overtime, benefits or taxes to independent contractors. Strip-club managers insist the dancers are not employees and are free to work as they please as long as they follow the rules. The case is still in its early stages. Legal teams are gathering evidence and, in pretrial motions and counter-motions, trying to expand or narrow the size of the plaintiff class. Rulings are expected near the end of the year with the case, if there is no settlement, unlikely to get before a jury before spring 2016. COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016 ----------------------------------------------- Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in a class action lawsuit has been set for March 16, 2016. On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action involving allegations that the Company violated certain California state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks. The Company intends to conduct a vigorous defense of this case, which is currently in the discovery stage. The Company is unable to determine the potential outcome of this case, which could be material, at this time. The trial date has been set for March 16, 2016. COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice, Discovery Yet in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that no motion practice or discovery has taken place in a class action filed in Tennessee state court on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers in Tennessee. On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies, including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The lawsuit, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all parties who purchased steel products directly from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008 (collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid approximately $4.0 million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration for the full and final release of all claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. The Company maintains that the claims lacked merit and that it has full and complete defenses to all of the claims asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter into the settlement agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. On October 17, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. On September 24, 2008, a case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a purported nationwide class of indirect purchasers naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially identical to those of the complaint filed by Standard Iron Works. The lawsuit sought damages, including reasonable attorney fees and other amounts recoverable by statute. Some document production has occurred in the case. Another action was filed in Tennessee state court on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers in Tennessee naming the same defendants but seeking recovery for purchases through 2010. The lawsuit sought damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. The case has been removed to federal court and was transferred to United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in March 2012. No motion practice or discovery has taken place. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the information available as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss relating to these cases. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Ellzey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Ellzey, et al. v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00832 (M.D. Tenn., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. The Defendants is one of the largest publicly-traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals in communities across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clint H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBIT PLC 101 North Highland Avenue Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: - and - Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq. Christopher J. Zulanas, Esq. John Michael Bowling, Esq. FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, P.C. 3800 Corporate Woods Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com czulanas@friedman-lawyers.com mbowling@friedman-lawyers.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55113 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Christopher T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Pl, #1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com - and - Turner W. Branch, Esq. Mary Lou Boelcke, Esq. BRANCH LAW FIRM 2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW Albuquerque, NM 87104 E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com mlboelcke@branchlawfirm.com - and - Donald W. Stewart, Esq. Dylan Reeves, Esq. STEWART & STEWART PC 1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300 Bessemer, AL 35021 E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com dreeves@stewartandstewart.net CONNECTICUT: Non-Union State Employees Wins Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Edmund H. Mahony, writing for Hartford Couran, reported that the state has quietly settled a suit that challenged what critics claim was a policy permitting a labor union to collect dues from state employees who choose not to be union members. The settlement, approved by a federal judge in Hartford, requires the state and its principal public employees union to modify a payroll system that about 200 state employees claim violated their constitutional right not to participate in union activities The employees who brought the class action suit are members of a bargaining unit of about 2,300 engineering, scientific and technical personnel. They were represented by the nonprofit, Washington, D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The settlement, endorsed by U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, ends what the plaintiffs called a decade-long grievance among non- union employees, but purposely avoids assigning legal liability for the way dues have been deducted in the past from state paychecks. State Comptroller Kevin Lembo, whose office runs the state payroll system, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the case and referred questions to state Attorney General George Jepsen. Jepsen's staff referred questions about the suit's allegations to the Connecticut State Employees Association. The union lawyer and a spokesman for the union did not respond to questions about the suit and settlement. Stanley Juber, a state bridge engineer and lead plaintiff in the case, said the settlement was a victory for state employees who choose to opt out of unions and a repudiation of what he called an unconstitutional state law and payroll system that let the union structure payroll deductions. Juber said the suit targeted a law he said remains on the books and requires non-union state employees to pay union dues. But he said the state and the union settled the suit before questions about the law's constitutionality were reached. "The statute that authorizes full union dues for non-members is unconstitutional," Juber said. "Rather than deal with that issue, the state and the union sort of settled out of court and agreed to treat us as if we had won." Under the settlement, state employees who chose not to be union members can withdraw at any time. When they withdraw, the state will promptly stop deducting a full amount of union dues from their checks. The employees will be required to pay proportional dues to pay for the costs of collective bargaining by the union on workplace issues. But the employees will not be charged for union expenses such as lobbying and political activities. Juber said the difference between proportional and full union dues is about $300 annually. In the past, employees wishing to withdraw from union membership were allowed to do so only during a one month period each year. Those who failed to withdraw during the designated month were required to retain their membership and pay full dues. The settlement complies with U.S. Supreme Court holdings on union membership and dues, according to Will Collins, of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Juber said the Supreme Court decisions are apparently at odds with state labor law, which reads in part: "If an exclusive representative has been designated for the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, each employee in such unit who is not a member of the exclusive representative shall be required, as a condition of continued employment, to pay to such organization for the period that it is the exclusive representative, an amount equal to the regular dues, fees and assessments that a member is charged." CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages ------------------------------------------------ Philip Vasto, Zao Yang, Alex Torres, and Xiaoj Zheng, and all others similarly situated v. Credico (USA) LLC, Cromex Inc., Jesse Young and Meixi Xu, Case No. 1:15-cv-06503 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2015), seek restitution of all wages deprived, payment for training time, and all other relief entitled pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law. Credico (USA) LLC, on its own and through various entities operated by Credico, including CroMex, provides its clients with face-to-face sales and marketing services through its team of workers located throughout the country. Jesse Young is the president of Credico (USA) LLC. CroMex Inc provides clients with face-to-face sales and marketing services throughout its team of workers located in New York, Maryland, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada. Meizi Xu is the owner and manager of Cromex Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com CVS HEALTH: Hausfeld & Stein Mitchell File Class Action in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmacy customers of CVS Health Corporation (CVS) filed a class action lawsuit on July 30 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that CVS employed a fraudulent scheme to overcharge millions of customers across the country for generic prescription drugs. Attorneys from Hausfeld and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP represent the plaintiffs and filed the suit on their behalf. CVS is alleged to have implemented and maintained a false and deceptive pricing scheme affecting more than 400 generic drugs, forcing customers with health insurance to pay CVS copayments far higher than the usual and customary price CVS charged its cash- paying customers. "Consumers filled more than 935 million prescriptions at CVS last year, capturing nearly a quarter of the U.S. market. The potential scope of the harm alleged in the complaint is massive," said Robert B. Gilmore -- RGilmore@steinmitchell.com -- a partner with Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP. CVS generates approximately $67 billion in annual revenues from its retail pharmacy business, and plaintiffs allege that CVS' wrongful overcharging is a significant percentage of those revenues. "As alleged in the complaint, for seven years CVS has systematically been overcharging their insured consumers for prescriptions. The alleged scheme is especially harmful to those people with low or fixed incomes who use medications on a regular basis. Plaintiffs assert that the drug chain wrongfully has charged insured consumers inflated copayments on more than 400 generic medications, including some of the most commonly used drugs on the market today. According to the complaint, millions of people have been affected by this misconduct," said Hausfeld partner Richard S. Lewis -- rlewis@hausfeld.com The plaintiffs seek to represent all consumers who were participants in third-party healthcare plans and who filled their prescriptions for certain generic drugs at CVS between November 2008 and the present, and paid more than prices available under the CVS Health Savings Pass program. The plaintiffs are jointly represented by Washington, D.C.-based firms Hausfeld and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP, both of which carry substantial experience in class action, healthcare, and commercial litigation. A copy of the complaint is available on the Hausfeld firm site: www.hausfeld.com, and on the Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP firm site: www.steinmitchell.com Insured CVS pharmacy customers may contact the firms to learn more about their legal rights. For additional inquiries, please contact Kristen Ward Broz (Hausfeld) at 202-540-7170 kward@hausfeld.com or Erin Clancy (Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP) at 202-661-0936. Customers can also email inquiries to cvs@steinmitchell.com About Hausfeld Hausfeld -- http://www.hausfeld.com-- is a global law firm with offices in Washington, DC; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Brussels; and London. The firm has a broad range of complex litigation expertise, particularly in consumer, antitrust/competition, financial services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass torts, and human rights matters. About Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP -- http://www.steinmitchell.com-- is a litigation law firm with national and international reach that has achieved successful results for clients for more than 50 years. Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP provide counsel in complex, high-stakes litigation, including commercial litigation, consumer class actions, and whistleblower suits. DCOMM INC: "Neill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- DJ Neill, and others similarly-situated v. Dcomm Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00616 (W.D. Tex., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages equal in amount of the unpaid compensations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is involved in the business of installation of broadband telecommunications, internet and telephone systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com DEVINE & SON: Faces "Saunders" Suit for Failure to Pay Min. Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Saunders, Omar Shepherd, Dwayne Forcell, and Christopher Kyles v. Devine & Son Trucking Co. Inc., Case No. RG15779800 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. Devine & Son Trucking Co. Inc. operates four terminals located in Sacramento, Fresno, Oakland, and Lathrop. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com DLM STATUTORY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Stotler" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Carey D. Stotler, Christina L. Ketchum, and Michael W. Barnhart v. DLM Statutory Agent Corp., Providence Healthcare Management, Inc., and Eli Gunzburg, Case No. 4:15-cv-01491 (N.D. Ohio, July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a nursing facility located in Columbiana County, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard T. Bush, Esq. GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI 800 City Centre One Bldg. 100 Federal Plaza, E P.O. Box 849 Youngstown, OH 44501-0849 Telephone: (330) 743-5101 E-mail: rbush@green-haines.com EBAY: Sellers May Get Refunds from Recurring Fees ------------------------------------------------- Scott Hardy, writing for Top Class Actions, reported that if you're an eBay seller, and paid for a "good til canceled" listing, you could get some money back. Allegations are eBay charged recurring listing fees not included in their disclosures. Most people affected received letters indicating that and could get back around 9 percent of what they spent. There are varying dates for eligibility from 2008 to 2012. eBay admits no wrongdoing. If this affects you, and you didn't get a notification, find out how to file a claim . EXCALIBUR SPECIAL: Ontario Court Affirms Denial of Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Cobb, Esq. -- acobb@osler.com -- Craig T. Lockwood, Esq. -- clockwood@osler.com -- and Joshua Krusell, Esq. -- jkrusell@osler.com -- at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reported that in the recent Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP decision, a majority of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the ruling of Justice Perell denying certification of a proposed global class action on the basis that it failed to meet the preferable procedure and identifiable class requirements. The decision is instructive for those responding to certification motions insofar as it provides insight into application of the preferable procedure requirements in the class action context, as well as the limitations imposed on national or global class actions where the underlying issues are not sufficiently connected to Ontario. FAMILY DOLLAR: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in in North Carolina MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the North Carolina Multi-District Misclassification Litigation. Since 2001, the Company has been involved in a series of cases in which certain store managers ("Store Managers") have alleged they were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers have filed lawsuits alleging the Company violated the FLSA and/or similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The majority of the complaints also request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs. In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In each of these cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime. Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the NC Federal Court has not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these cases. FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement Payments in "Hegab" Case Have Been Made ----------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that all class settlement payments in the case, Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., have been made per the terms of the settlement agreement. Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3, 2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis. On June 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 3, 2014. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on March 9, 2015, for an amount not material to the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. All class settlement payments have been made per the terms of the settlement agreement. FAMILY DOLLAR: 3rd Circuit Affirms Decision in "Itterly" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that in the case, Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Third Court has affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Family Dollar. Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 9, 2015, the Third Court affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Family Dollar. As a result, this case is now dismissed. FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Case -------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its motion in the case, Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc. Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In the interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May 13, 2014. The Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its motion. FAMILY DOLLAR: Briefing Done in "Steingruber" Case Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that in the case, Steingruber v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc., briefing is completed on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Stay the Case, a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and a Motion to Strike the Collective Action Allegations. Steingruber v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 23, 2015. The lawsuit was brought as a collective action on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated Family Dollar store managers alleging the store managers are misclassified as being exempt from overtime under the FLSA. On April 3, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Stay the Case, a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and a Motion to Strike the Collective Action Allegations. Briefing is completed on these motions and they are currently pending before the court. FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered "Scott" Case to Insurer ----------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the Company has tendered the case, Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008. Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider, based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The case is now back with the district court. On September 8, 2014, the district court entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling Plan and the parties are proceeding with limited discovery pursuant to those Orders. The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve is appropriate due to the status of the case. FAMILY DOLLAR: To Defend Against 3 Suits Over Dollar Tree Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the company intends to vigorously defend the claims in three putative class action lawsuits related to a merger deal. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub, Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of Chancery: * Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9985, filed on July 31, 2014, * Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and * Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10080, filed on September 3, 2014. On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges, generally, that the members of the Family Dollar Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the pending Dollar Tree merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the merger. On September 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar Board of Directors to deem the terms of Dollar General's proposal sufficient to warrant entering into negotiations with Dollar General under the terms of the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a hearing on September 10, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded the temporary restraining order application did not merit scheduling a hearing to consider such relief, and declined to do so. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On December 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application in the Delaware Court of Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which application the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2, 2015. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits. FAMILY DOLLAR: Working to Evaluate Allegations in "Moore" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the case, Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is in the initial stages of litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations contained in the class action petition. On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly situated, received Short Message Service ("SMS") text message advertisements from the Company, without providing express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has requested the court enter an order certifying the action as a class action, and appointing him as representative of the class. Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in favor of himself, and the proposed class, for all damages available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per willful violation. The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The Company moved to bifurcate discovery, thus limiting initial discovery to the individual named plaintiff, Reginald Moore. After a hearing on the issue, the judge ruled in favor of the Company and issued an order limiting initial discovery to Mr. Moore's individual TCPA claim. The parties have conducted initial discovery related to Mr. Moore's TCPA claim only. Additionally, the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Moore's individual claim. No ruling has been made on the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. The case against the Company is in the initial stages of litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this case. FRESHPOINT OF SOUTH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Yauhen Brasaus a/k/a James Ericsson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. FreshPoint Of South Florida, Inc., 0:15-cv-61529-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. FreshPoint Of South Florida, Inc. provides produce distribution for hotels, restaurants, and supermarkets throughout South Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Lee Bogle, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY and PROCTOR, P.A. 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7043 Facsimile: (850) 436-6102 E-mail: bbogle@levinlaw.com GOOGLE INC: Scores Win in Android Users' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Jason Mick, writing for Daily Tech, reported that after a number of previous dismissals and a short-lived class action Google pounds the nail in the coffin of a long-lived legal headache Three disgruntled users of Google Inc.'s (GOOG) mobile Android operating system must be none too happy with their lawyers, who managed to scuttle their federal class action privacy lawsuit against Google in the most bizarre of turns. I. Gimme Privacy Robert DeMars of Calif., Michael Goldberg of Ohio, and Scott McCullough of New Jersey first filed the suit back in June 2012. The suit dealt with the major shift in Google's privacy policy that occurred in March 2012. Prior to that, Google had maintained separate databases of user information for each of its products. But starting in spring of 2012, Google put forth a new set of privacy terms that allowed it to mix its data across multiple platforms, including its ubiquitous search self-titled search engine, its popular Gmail email client/service, and across the wold's most used smartphone platform, Android. Unhappy with the impact that would have on their privacy, the trio filed their claims and consolidated them into a federal suit in Calif. seekd consumer class action status. The suit was also tied to controversial tactics Google was using to mine user data into its cross-platform database, including circumventing security settings in Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) Safari browser. That tactic led to a probe of Google by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC would eventually accept a settlement that some analysts likened to "a slap on the wrist" -- a mere $22.5M USD fine. From the beginning the case was overseen by U.S. District Judge Paul Singh Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California (CAND-USC). Out the gate, things got off to the rocky start. On Dec. 28, 2012 Judge Grewal dismissed the case, ruling in so many words that the customers failed to provide enough hard evidence that Google's new policy was damaging them financial or privay-wise. But to Google's chagrin he let the plaintiffs and their legal team rework their claim. Thus the case lingered on. II. Round Two and Three The plaintiffs would soldier on. The lawyers tried to rework the case, presenting the case to a different U.S. District Judge -- Judge Lucy H. Koh -- in the same court one year later. This time around they would make the creative claim that Google was violating the so-called "Federal Wiretap Act" (18 U.S. Code Chapter 119) -- a set of U.S. criminal laws that were put in place by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (referred to as the "Wiretap Statute") and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). Generally speaking, Google was right. The plaintiffs were on shaky legal footing, esp. considering that (as noted by Google's lawyers) Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) had already prevailed in a similar terms-of-service/user privacy case. The plaintiffs lawyers fired back with a buckshot approach citing dozens of cases, some of which seemed tenuously related to the matter at hand. That argument failed to persuade Judge Koh, who granted another partial dismissal -- this time citing technical flaws in the claims. As Judge Grewal did, however, Judge Koh's Sept. 26, 2013 ruling left the door open to revised filings. But interestingly Judge Grewal this time decided somewhat in the plaintiff's favor. He indicated that their arguments pertaining to smartphone battery life and data usage relating to the app store and its new privacy provisions. He commented: Thus the plaintiff's had at least a clear path forward -- or so it seemed -- as Judge Grewal made it exceedingly clear that they had two -- and only two -- possible valid claims against Google from a privay perspective (both pertaining to app privacy on Android). But apparently Judge Grewal's instructions weren't explict enough. In Feb. 2015 the plaintiff's lawyers -- Mark Gardy and Joseph Sabella -- did something that even the Judge in the case noted as somewhat bizarre. The lawyer duo appeared not to take his previous ruling previously. Not only did they add on new privacy related claims, but they basically abandoned the sole claims Judge Grewal had told them they could pursue -- the battery life and data usage angles. Judge Grewal was even taken aback. Reuters quotes him as saying: The plaintiffs and their lawyers managed something somewhat unusual: they pled themselves out of a case. With no allegation of dissemination or improper receipt of information, any profit or loss made from any alleged disclosure, let alone a potential disclosure, is conjectural. You might think that after three years of complaints, motions to dismiss, orders on motions to dismiss, leave to amend, amended complaints and more, at least the fundamental question of plaintiffs' Article III standing to pursue this suit would be settled. You might think that, but you would be wrong. Thus Judge Grewal completely dismissed the case. This time there's no chance of a fourth revival. The privacy class action suit is dead. But it will surely live on in the constant stream of suits that Apple, Google, Facebook, Inc. (FB), Yahoo!, and others face on a regular basis. After all the Google suit is hardly special for its premise. All of the major players in the internet services space have been targeted by similar class actions in recent years. Still the Google Privacy case (re: Google Inc Privacy Policy Litigation, No. 12-01382) will surely live on in memory as one of the more bizarre class actions in both its ability to revive itself zombie style, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times in federal court only to ultimately have the plaintiff's lawyers kill it dead for good in a bizarre moment of confusion or hubris. HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed motions to dismiss class action lawsuits. The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013) ("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits. HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Faces "Recarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Recarte and Rosa Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Moises Recarte, and Jose Turcios, individually v. Hauppauge Bagel Corp., d/b/a Brendel's Bagels, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Hauppauge Bagel Corp. operates Brendel's Bagels store with its principal place of business is located at 950 Wheeler Road, Hauppauge, New York 11788. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 449-9100 Facsimile: (631) 449-9120 E-mail: gkaske@shulmankessler.com HERBALIFE: Former Distributors Ask Judge to Reconsider Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Long, writing for Natural Products, reported that former Herbalife distributors who objected to an approved class-action settlement have asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to reconsider her decision. Herbalife Ltd. agreed to reserve US$15 million for distributors and abide by other terms including a number of corporate reforms to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the multilevel marketer (MLM) was a pyramid scheme. Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell concluded in May that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. But lawyers representing 18 distributors who previously objected to the agreement aren't done contesting its adequacy. A motion for reconsideration was filed, asking the judge to vacate the final judgment and order of dismissal in the case. Massachusetts lawyer Douglas Brooks argued the notice to the class was inadequate and that the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit didn't have the right or "standing" to seek injunctive relief because they are no longer active participants in the MLM. And the judge erred by failing to independently evaluate the value of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, according to Brooks' 29-page memorandum. Finally, Brooks referenced an old speech by Herbalife CEO Michael Johnson and a recent Herbalife annual sales convention or "Extravaganza" where the St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed distributors who operate in a level dubbed "Future Millionaire." The New York Post quoted Johnson in a 2005 speech as stating that distributors had sometimes engaged in unethical practices, and Herbalife's leader reportedly encouraged high-level distributors to do the right thing. "The conduct at Herbalife Extravaganza in St. Louis indicates that Michael Johnson's warnings to Herbalife's high level distributors have been ignored, and that Herbalife is not serious about enforcing them," Brooks wrote. Although the company has faced accusations that it operates a massive pyramid scheme and is being investigated by state and federal authorities, fewer than 8,000 individuals -- or less than 1 percent of class members -- filed a claim for relief under the class-action settlement. Herbalife doesn't see a problem with that. Earlier, Herbalife argued in court papers that the majority of class members who declined to file a claim "confirmed the integrity of its business model." Herbalife on declined to comment on the motion for reconsideration. If the judge declines to change her mind, Brooks' clients will have to decide whether to live with the final settlement or lodge an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The former distributors are being represented by Brooks and the Los Angeles law firm Cohen McKeon LLP. HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that the court approved the settlement in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter on June 16, 2015. Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or Parent have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include the following: * Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013, Parent and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter, mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement on June 16, 2015. * Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that certain information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 11, 2013, Parent and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and approved the settlement on June 16, 2015. HEWLETT PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Engaged in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. The parties are engaged in discovery. HEWLETT PACKARD: Plaintiffs in "Benedict" File Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, have filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015. Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that Parent violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. HEWLETT PACKARD: Approval Hearing Held in Securities Case Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that preliminary approval hearing was set for July 17, 2015, in the settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action. In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of Parent's enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, Parent filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part Parent's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against Parent and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On June 9, 2015, Parent entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action. Under the terms of the settlement, Parent, through its insurers, will contribute $100 million to a settlement fund that will be used to compensate persons who purchased Parent's shares during the period from August 19, 2011 through November 20, 2012. No individual is contributing to the settlement. Parent and its current and former officers, directors, and advisors will be released from any Autonomy-related securities claims as part of the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval. The preliminary approval hearing was set for July 17, 2015. HEWLETT PACKARD: 2nd Amended Complaint in ERISA Case Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that in the HP ERISA Litigation, the court has granted Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to Parent's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and Parent's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in Parent stock. On August 16, 2013, Parent filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted Parent's motion to dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. On June 15, 2015, the court granted Parent's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs had thirty days to appeal the court's order. HOMEJOY INC: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Reyna, and others similarly-situated v. Homejoy, Inc. dba Homejoy, Case No. 4:15-cv-03405 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, waiting time penalties, injunctive relief, other equitable relief, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant and who were abruptly terminated as part of or as a result of mass layoffs ordered by the Defendant on or about July 17, 2015, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their termination. The Defendant provides cleaning services in cities throughout the country via an on-demand dispatch system. It is based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 492 9th Street, Suite 260 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (415) 968-8999 Fax: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com - and - Lori E. Andrus, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 986-1400 Fax: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Homeland Patrol Corporation and Mirtha E. Cordero, Case No. 1:15-cv-22800-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a security guard agency in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale Lyn Friedman, Esq. CONROY SIMBERG GANON KREVANS & ABEL 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, 2nd Floor Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 961-1400 Facsimile: 967-8577 E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com HONDA MOTOR: Product Recall Cases Transferred to Florida -------------------------------------------------------- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. provides warranty programs with regard to the product recalls and SIC (Safety Improvement Campaign) related to airbag inflators. In North America, various class actions related to the product recalls and SIC have been filed against Honda since October 2014. The plaintiffs have claimed for properly functioning airbag inflators, compensation of economic losses including for incurred costs and the decline in the value of vehicles, as well as punitive damages. Most of the cases in the United States were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and consolidated into a multidistrict litigation, Honda said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. HSBC BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Undisclosed Maintenance Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ Donald Wechsler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-05907 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendant's imposition of undisclosed and unlawful monthly account maintenance fee charges on customers with HSBC Everyday Savings Accounts. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business located at 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com krichter@nka.com jhashmall@nka.com ILLINIOS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Richmond-Davis Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Schory, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reported that the Illinois Second District Appellate Court in Elgin upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a class-action complaint against St. Charles School District 303 in the reorganization of Richmond- Davis schools. Parents of students at the schools alleged District 303 had acted contrary to the Illinois School Code when it converted Davis to a school for students in kindergarten through second grade and Richmond into a campus for students in third through fifth grade. In filing the class-action complaint in October 2013, the parents claimed the district did not "give the parents of the children forced to attend Richmond a 'choice' to transfer them to another school 'in contravention of the law.'" Some parents put their children in private schools at a cost in excess of $50,000, according to the suit. They sought, among other things, compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, according to the suit. In a 10-page decision, the three appellate judges agreed with the Kane County Circuit Court ruling the suit was barred by state law, and the school code did not allow for a private cause of action for damages. St. Charles attorney Timothy Dwyer represented the parents. "Obviously, we are disappointed," Dwyer said. "I think both trial courts and the appellate court said the school district obviously violated the law, but we were not able to get any remedy." Parent Larry Norgaard said he has mixed emotions at this point. "I objected to the railroading," Norgaard said, referring to the way the reorganization plan was put in place for the 2011-12 school year. "They did not address the Hispanic population, which was 51 percent, in their language," Norgaard said. "That is not fair. They were just as concerned as we were." Superintendent Donald Schlomann said he hoped this would complete the trio of legal cases that arose from the reorganization. "Should a decision, made by the board of education, [result in the district] being required to pay local community members in a class action?" Schlomann said. "And the court found, in this case, the answer to that is 'no.' " Schlomann said the district now can be "focused on the classroom, not the courtroom." "We are trying to make sure we have a quality education for our children, whether they are at Richmond, Davis, or any of our schools," Schlomann said. IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Khaimov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Venyamin K. Khaimov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04412 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Intralinks Holdings disclosed the following on July 31: "On July 30, 2015, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement that will resolve the federal securities class action lawsuit filed in 2011 against the Company and other defendants, captioned Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:11-cv-08861-TPG, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The current and former officers, directors and underwriters named as defendants in the Securities Class Action have also entered into the Settlement. The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class Action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. The Company and the other defendants continue to maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class Action. The Company and the other defendants agreed to the Settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted litigation." "Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $14.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in the Securities Class Action. The Company currently expects that the full Settlement Amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurers. The Settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the District Court and certain other conditions." JOHN DOE CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Negrete Zaragoza and Nael Lopez Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. John Doe Corp. d/b/a To Be Thai, Manit Yotmanee and Cherri Yotmanee, Case No. 1:15-cv- 04396 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 126 Beverley Rd., Brooklyn, New York 11218. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com JOHN WM: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Jones" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Jones, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. John WM. Macy Cheesesticks, Inc., Case No. 509337/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers in the State of New York who purchased Cheese Crisps, Cheese Sticks, and Sweet Sticks, that were falsely marketed by the Defendant as "All Natural." The products at issue are not "all natural" because they contain synthetic ingredients thiamine mononitrate, niacin, reduced iron, riboflavin, and folic acid. John WM. Macy Cheesesticks, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that manufactures, sells, markets, distributes, advertises, and promotes snack products in and throughout New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jean M. Sedlak, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 722-4266 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com KETTLE: Class Suit Settlement Over Chips Misleading Labels ---------------------------------------------------------- Joey Ducey, writing for ABC15, reported that a class action lawsuit claims Kettle brand chips were mislabeled. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions said "they are marked or were marketed as all natural, no GMOs, no preservatives." But allegations are that that's not true. So if you bought Kettle Potato, Tortilla or TIAS chips, you could get back $1 per bag up to $20. They had to be bought between January 2010 and February 2015. The claim deadline is July 30, 2015. Kettle chips denies any wrongdoing. KNOWLES CORP: Sept. 15 Trial Set in Shareholder Case v. Audience ---------------------------------------------------------------- Knowles Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that trial has been scheduled for September 15, 2015, in the class action lawsuit against Audience, Inc. On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County against Audience, the members of its board of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A trial has been scheduled for September 15, 2015. Audience believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action. On July 1, 2015, Knowles, a Delaware corporation ("Knowles"), completed its acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Shares"), of Audience, a Delaware corporation ("Audience"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 29, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Knowles, Orange Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Knowles ("Purchaser"), and Audience, pursuant to which Purchaser offered to purchase all of the outstanding Shares (the "Offer"). LENOVO GROUP: Firms Brawl Over Lead Counsel Slots in MDL -------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reported that Plaintiffs lawyers handling privacy cases might work on cutting-edge legal issues, but that doesn't prevent them from breaking into old- fashioned lead counsel fights. Four groups of plaintiffs firms are set to convene in U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte's San Jose courtroom morning to vie for the lead counsel spot in privacy litigation against laptop maker Lenovo Group Ltd. and adware company Superfish Inc. In their briefs, the plaintiffs groups have taken aim at each others' motives, tactics and qualifications almost as aggressively as they've targeted the defendants. The underlying litigation accuses Lenovo of installing Superfish adware on its notebook computers that allegedly tracked users' Internet activity and made their computers vulnerable to cyberattacks. More than two dozen lawsuits have been filed against the companies since Lenovo's insertion of the Superfish program onto its laptops became public in February. In June, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to Whyte for pretrial proceedings in In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, 15- 2624, despite calls from some plaintiffs to route the cases to the Eastern District of North Carolina, the home of Lenovo's U.S. headquarters. Three plaintiffs groups have emerged as top contenders for the coveted lead counsel spot in the MDL. Privacy specialists at the Edelson law firm have paired with class action firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in one of the most formidable groups, and the one most willing to criticize others in the back-and-forth motions leading up to hearing. They're facing a competing bid from a trio of Bay Area firms: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Girard Gibbs and Pritzker Levine. The Bay Area group touts the backing of the vast majority of other MDL plaintiffs. A third group from Block & Leviton and Van Laningham Duncan claims that their work on a preliminary-injunction motion benefited all potential class members, and that they're the only group with lawyers in North Carolina and the Bay Area, where Superfish is headquartered. Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm has also made a bid to be appointed interim class counsel. Things could get uncomfortable in Whyte's courtroom if the hearing is as contentious as the briefing that's led up to it. In one filing, Robbins Geller's Patrick Coughlin and Edelson's Jay Edelson labeled the Bay Area firms' campaign to garner support from other plaintiffs a "popularity contest" unworthy of consideration from the judge. Coughlin and Edelson also claim the complaint filed by the Cotchett firm lifted nine paragraphs word- for-word from the initial suit filed by Edelson. "Leaders draft, followers copy," they wrote. They further accuse the Bay Area firms of going behind their backs to complain to the defendants about arranging "secret" mediation session after initially collaborating on a pre-MDL effort to streamline the case. In reply, the Bay Area firms accuse Robbins Geller and Edelson of engaging in pre-MDL settlement talks without the benefit of discovery and against the better judgment of other plaintiffs. "This is hardly a record demonstrating the ability to work cooperatively with other plaintiffs' counsel," wrote Jonathan Levine of Pritzker Levine. ("Ability to work cooperatively with others" was one of six criteria Whyte laid out for lead counsel candidates in June in an initial case management order.) Despite often taking aim at one another, the Bay Area firms and the Edelson/Robbins Geller group were united in criticizing the preliminary injunction efforts of Block & Leviton and Van Laningham Duncan. The motion for a preliminary injunction to force Lenovo to give notice to customers about the risks associated with the Superfish adware and instructions on how to remove it was briefed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case was transferred before a ruling on the injunction. Levine wrote that the injunction bid was "a 'go-it-alone' strategy that has found no support from any other plaintiffs firm in the litigation." Edelson and Geller wrote that the lack of communication with other plaintiffs about the injunction bid demonstrated either an inability to cooperate or a desire to show some procedural advancement in hopes of bolstering the firms' leadership bid. Even Lenovo's counsel, Daniel Stephenson at K&L Gates, said that the preliminary-injunction motion had been ineffective, though the company expressed no preference in the lead counsel fight. "Lenovo believes that the PI motion accomplished nothing," Stephenson wrote. In response, Block & Leviton's Lesley Weaver claimed that the preliminary-injunction effort had elicited potentially damaging statements from the company. "None of the competing movants have been able to identify a single concrete step that they have taken to address the ongoing harm that all movants have alleged in their complaints," she wrote. Weaver also warned that "perceived attacks" on the qualifications of other firms by plaintiffs could potentially be fodder for the defendants to challenge the adequacy of any proposed class as the case progresses. Reached by phone morning, Weaver said the feuding amounts to "a bunch of talented lawyers interested in leading an important case." "We're focused on representing the rights of consumers," she said, declining to comment further. Edelson and Levine both declined to comment. Saveri didn't respond to phone and email messages. The hearing is set for 9 a.m. in San Jose. LIBERTY TAX: Parties in ERC Class Action Reached Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the parties in the ERC class action litigation have entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which the Company will establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million. "We were sued in November 2011 in federal courts in Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New York and Minnesota," the Company said. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. "The consolidated complaint alleges that our refund transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in- lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs," the Company said. "The plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes." The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million. "We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which we will establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees," the Company said. "The parties are in the process of arranging for the remand of the case to the trial court, which must approve the settlement. We have preserved potential claims against a financial product partner that was responsible for the design of a portion of our ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. We have also accrued the proposed settlement amount." LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Remains Subject to Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the settlement reached in a TCPA class action litigation remains subject to other conditions typical in a class action. "We were sued in September 2013 in federal court in Illinois in connection with alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act," the Company said. "Plaintiff alleges that we inappropriately made auto dialed telephone calls to cellular telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action, and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. We tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party entity that had contracted with us to solicit potential franchisees, and that third party entity acknowledged its defense and indemnification obligations to us. However, because the third party did not have the financial resources to satisfy its defense and indemnity obligations, we concluded that we could not rely upon the fulfillment of those obligations." "In September 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement of this litigation pursuant to which we will establish a settlement fund of $3.0 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. This settlement has received the preliminary approval of the court, but remains subject to other conditions typical in a class action. We have accrued the proposed settlement amount." LEVY ACQUISITION: Reached Settlement of "Tomasulo" Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Levy Acquisition Corp. has reached a settlement in principle of all claims asserted in Tomasulo v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, et al., a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Levy said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2015. The settlement resolves all claims that the June 11, 2015 definitive proxy filed by LAC is misleading or incomplete as well as all other causes of action asserted in the case. The settlement in principle does not provide for any monetary payment to the plaintiff or the putative plaintiff class, but the plaintiff may request that the Circuit Court order the Company to pay its attorneys' fees. Any final settlement will be subject to the Circuit Court's approval. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Suit Over Top Executives' Exit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported that Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc., whose stock has plummeted since a "60 Minutes" expose revealed that its hardwood laminate flooring products contained illegal levels of formaldehyde, is fending off a raft of shareholder lawsuits filed against its top executives, many of whom have abruptly left the company. The shareholder lawsuits are separate from the more than 100 consumer class actions coordinated before U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia. Shareholders filed a consolidated derivative complaint on behalf of Toano, Virginia-based Lumber Liquidators on June 26 against the company's board and five officers, including three who have left since the "60 Minutes" report on March 1. In April, the company announced chief financial officer Daniel Terrell's resignation. Chief executive officer Robert Lynch abruptly left in May. William Schlegel, who was the head of merchandising, was fired. Those executives and Lumber Liquidators also moved to dismiss a separate securities class action brought on behalf of shareholders accusing them of securities fraud. The lawsuits have proliferated since the "60 Minutes" piece revealed Lumber Liquidators was working with Chinese mills that didn't comply with the California Air Resources Board's regulations on formaldehyde emissions. Depending on the reasons, the high-profile executive departures could bolster the shareholder litigation against Lumber Liquidators, said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. "If they're getting fired because they knew the company was importing noncompliant products -- products that didn't comply with California law -- that would be a case in which you can say 'Gee, that shows it was negligent,' " he said. "The case against those fired officers would be somewhat stronger." A Lumber Liquidators spokeswoman and Lyle Roberts, a partner in the Washington office of Palo Alto, Calif.-based Cooley who represents the company and its board and officers, did not respond to a request for comment. Both shareholder actions allege that Lumber Liquidators and its executives misled investors in financial reports and conference calls by attributing its increasing gross margins to improvements in its business partnerships. Instead, the lawsuits allege, Lumber Liquidators used illegally sourced, cheaper lumber and partnered with Chinese mills that manufactured flooring products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The securities class action complaint originally was filed in November 2013 following reports that federal agents had searched the corporate offices of Lumber Liquidators. Since then, Lumber Liquidators stock has plummeted from a peak of $119 a share to less than $20. On Feb. 25, Lumber Liquidators confirmed that the Justice Department was considering criminal charges as part of an investigation into whether the company violated the U.S. Lacey Act by importing illegally sourced timber from protected forests in Russia. In the securities class action's amended complaint, filed on April 22, plaintiffs allege that the misrepresentations of the three executives and founder Thomas Sullivan, now interim CEO, caused investor losses of $1.52 billion. The complaint, which references the statements of six confidential witnesses, also alleges that they had a financial incentive to conceal that information because they cashed out millions of dollars of their own stock during the class period. "Our investigation showed the company was illegally sourcing wood from China and that explained the exceptional gross margins that Lumber Liquidators was able to achieve," said Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at Pomerantz in New York, lead plaintiffs counsel in the class action. "The recent resignations since the '60 Minutes' episode only confirm the allegations that we had in the original complaint. The company had too high levels of formaldehyde -- above levels by regulators -- in addition to illegally sourced wood." The class action was brought on behalf of anyone who purchased Lumber Liquidators stock between February 22, 2012, and February 27, 2015. The defendants moved to dismiss that action on June 2, blaming some of the stock drops on negative reports of short sellers and refuting any knowledge of the noncompliance issues. "The complaint identifies no document, witness, or other piece of evidence establishing that any individual defendant -- or anyone else at the company -- knew or was severely reckless in not knowing of the supposed regulatory violations and their alleged impact on Lumber Liquidators' financial performance," wrote Roberts, of Cooley. U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered that plaintiffs attorneys submit more information by July 21 about the confidential witnesses cited in their complaint after Lumber Liquidators discovered that one of them, having been contacted, disputed making the statements. Meanwhile, shareholders also have filed five derivative actions, which are brought by shareholders on behalf of the company generally against board members for failing to perform their fiduciary duties. Two cases have been filed in state courts in Virginia and Delaware, where the company is incorporated. On June 17, Wright Allen consolidated three derivative actions in federal court. The defendants are due to file their motions to dismiss by July 24. Despite the higher hurdle of a derivative complaint, Benny Goodman, a partner at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd who filed the consolidated derivative complaint, said the executive departures could demonstrate wrongdoing. "Often times, we see these kinds of mass resignations in the corporate suite in light of massive wrongdoing when there's a big financial scandal," he said. "In light of this, I think it's fair to say we rarely see a major financial scandal like this that doesn't originate from a failure of corporate governance." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Defective Product ----------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Pickle, and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holding, Inc. and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00804 (W.D. Okla., July 23, 2015), seeks damages, equitable monetary relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices for Breach of Warranty and Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Lumber Liquidators supervised and controlled the manufacturing, and packaged, distributed, marketed, and sold a variety of Chinese-manufactured laminate wood flooring materials that it prominently advertised and warranted as fully compliant with California's formaldehyde emission standards promulgated by the California Air Resources Board. The Defendants are specialty retailers of hardwood flooring in the U.S., with over 300 retail stores located in 46 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monty L. Cain, Esq. CAIN LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 892098 Oklahoma City, OK 73189 Tel: (405) 378-3033 Fax: (405) 632-3036 E-mail: monty@cainlaw-okc.com - and - Edward L. White, Esq. EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C. 825 East 33rd Street Edmond, OK 73013 Tel: (405) 810-8188 Fax: (405) 608-0971 E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219 Tel: (214) 560-2201 Fax: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net MAGNUM HUNTER: Dismissal of Securities Case Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------- Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Case in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. As reported by Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, certain class action complaints had previously been filed against the Company and certain of its officers relating to the alleged accounting issues further described below. In late 2013, the class action cases that remained outstanding were consolidated into one action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints in the Securities Case alleged that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (which was filed by the Company with the SEC in June 2013), the dismissal of the Company's previous independent registered accounting firm, and other matters identified in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 16, 2013, as amended. The complaints demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by the decline in the market price of the Company's common stock between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013. As reported by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 25, 2014, on June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Case. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Case in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. A copy of the Summary Order is available at: http://is.gd/KQ2GOk MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Seader" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Seader, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 11341-VCN (Del. Ch., July 28, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com szaroogian@wolfpopper.com MASTER DOOR: Removes "Velunza" Class Suit to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Pedro Velunza and other similarly situated individuals v. Master Door & Services, Inc. and Albert Gomez, Case No. 15-11516-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22802-RNS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Stuart Turk, Esq. Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON Museum Tower 150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 789-3200 Facsimile: 789-3395 E-mail: rturk@stearnsweaver.com fperera@stearnsweaver.com MATTY'S BAR: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto Olivares and Alfredo Benitez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Matty's Bar & Grille, Inc. and Matt Anderson, Case No. 2:15-cv-00912 (E.D. Wis., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with its principal place of business located at 14460 West College Avenue New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151. The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210, P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com MDC PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 31 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MDC Partners, Inc. common stock during the period between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 31, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mdc/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges MDC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MDC is a holding company that provides a comprehensive range of customized marketing, activation, communications and consulting services via its subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false or misleading statements about MDC's business, executive compensation, related-party transactions, goodwill, prospects and operations. These material misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of MDC and its business, prospects and operations, thus causing the Company's common stock to be overvalued and artificially inflated. As a result, MDC common stock traded at artificially inflated prices and the investing public suffered damages. On April 27, 2015, after the close of trading, MDC issued a press release announcing its financial results for the period ended March 31, 2015. The press release also reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's reporting of executive compensation and goodwill. In response to these revelations, the price of MDC common stock, which traded near the Class Period high of $28.65 per share on the last day of the Class Period, plummeted 27.8%, or $7.78 per share, from $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015 to close at $20.20 per share on April 28, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of MDC common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mdc/for more information. MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- WANE reports that a medical software company based in Fort Wayne recently sent out thousands of letters, letting people know their personal information may have been compromised. It happened during a network hack back in May. Now, James Young of Indianapolis has filed a federal class action lawsuit against Medical Informatics Engineering. "This data breach is an example of one of the more serious types of data breach situations to occur because the information that's been released consists primarily of personnel health information and electronic medical records," attorney Richard Shevitz said. That lawsuit claims MIE failed to ensure its data systems were adequately protected, and didn't notify victims in a timely manner. "A company of this nature should have the highest level of safeguards in place to make sure that the information will not be compromised, so for it to allow for the information to become released this way is obviously something regarded as a very serious breach," Mr. Shevitz said. The lawsuit was filed in federal court because it's expected to have more than 100 plaintiffs. Six counts are included in the suit, including negligence, breach of contract and violation of Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The suit also claims the company didn't provide timely notice of the breach. It happened in May and letters were sent to patients in July. Now, Mr. Shevitz is asking for damages. "There is a number of different ways they can be calculated, so we haven't yet come to a specific figure per person, but the amount damages is clearly in the millions of dollars of range," Mr. Shevitz said. The Indiana Attorney General is also investigating the breach. According to the AG's Office, about 1.5 million Hoosiers were affected and 3.9 million people across the country could have been impacted. The investigation will focus on whether or not customers were properly notified of the breach and if MIE had appropriate safeguards in place to protect customers' data. "We're all looking at the same set of facts that occurred, trying to assemble the information and come up with an accurate picture, for example, what types of controls the company had in place or didn't have in place, how soon the company knew of the problem before it alerted the consumers and that type of thing," Mr. Shevitz said. MIE Chief Operating Officer Eric Jones told 24-Hour News 8's sister station WANE-TV in an email on July 31 that they are aware of the suit and are reviewing it. He went on to say, "Our primary focus at this time is on our response to those affected by this cyber attack." Cohen & Malad LLP out of Indianapolis is handling the case. Any and all questions about the lawsuit can be directed to them at 317-636-6481. MORGANS HOTEL: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jahangir Ahmed, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Morgans Hotel Group Management LLC and Richard Szymanski, Case No. 153841/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of their catering facilities in New York. The Defendants operate a hotel and catering venues located in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen Jeffrey K. Brown Michael A. Tompkins LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 NAT'L HOCKEY: Commissioner Gives Deposition in Concussion Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SportingNews' Bob Hille, citing ESPN.com, reports that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was scheduled to give a legal deposition last July 31 as part of the class-action lawsuit against the league regarding concussions. Mr. Bettman's testimony was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. ET in U.S. District Court in New York before Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who ruled in May that Mr. Bettman possessed "unique or special knowledge relevant" to the players' lawsuit. Judge Nelson's ruling allowed the plaintiffs' attorneys the opportunity to first depose other witnesses, including deputy commissioner Bill Daly and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell, as well as one team trainer and a team doctor. More than 60 former NHL players -- including lead plaintiffs Dan LaCouture, Michael Peluso, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, David Christian and Reed Larson -- sued the league in November of 2013, claiming the NHL not only avoided its responsibility to forewarn players of the risks they faced with concussions and brain injuries, but also both "intentionally concealed material information" from and "recklessly endangered" the plaintiffs. Mr. Bettman previously said there is no evidence linking hockey and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative disease caused by brain trauma. "From a medical science standpoint, there is no evidence yet that one necessarily leads to the other," Mr. Bettman said. "I know there are a lot of theories, but if you ask people who study it, they tell you there is no statistical correlation that can definitively make that conclusion." The plaintiffs' class-action suit covers approximately 5,000 living former players who seek unspecified damages and court- approved, NHL-sponsored medical monitoring for neurological disorders and other concussion-related health problems. The NHL players' lawsuit came months after 4,500 former NFL players reached a $765 million settlement with the NFL over the same type of concussion-related complaints. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. (NYSE:NSM) securities between February 27, 2014 and May 4, 2015. The complaint alleges that Nationstar issued materially false and misleading statements. In particular it is alleged that Nationstar made certain positive statements about improving its profitability, however, Nationstar failed to disclose deficiencies in management control and supervision necessary to ensure the Company's compliance with applicable laws and regulations in connection with the servicing of MSRs. The complaint further alleges, among other allegations, that Nationstar had been gouging mortgagors and illegally enhancing its profits through illicit practices, including charging for repeated, unnecessary inspections. If you suffered a loss in Nationstar you have until August 3, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/NSM-Info- Request-Form-786. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. The firm may be reached at: Vincent Wong, Esq. The Law Office Of Vincent Wong 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com NITRO FLUIDS: "Sheard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Sheard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nitro Fluids, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00323 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Based in Nordheim, Texas, Nitro Fluids, LLC provides oilfield services to drilling and production sites throughout the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Ste 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deal Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court has granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment and order dismissing a securities class action, OmniVision Technologies said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015. "On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us and three of our executives, one of whom is a director," the Company said. "All of the complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions regarding our business and financial results, in particular regarding the use of our imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone." These actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities Case"). "On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. "On December 30, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to resolve the litigation, which was then submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for a payment of $12.5 million to the plaintiff class, which is funded solely by our insurance carriers. We also entered into a mutual release agreement with one of our insurance carriers. "In March 2015, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and ordering notice to the putative plaintiff class. On June 5, 2015, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment and order dismissing the action. "As of April 30, 2015, prior to the court granting final approval of the settlement, we reported on our Consolidated Balance Sheet $12.5 million as Recoverable insurance proceeds within Total current assets, and $12.5 million as Litigation settlement accrual within Total current liabilities." PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants in a class action lawsuit. 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. 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 by court order dated June 23, 2015. Trial was to occur on July 7, 2015 through July 9, 2015 and continue on July 13, 2015 to July 14, 2015. In an order dated June 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants concluding that there were genuine disputes of material fact for a jury to resolve in a class action alleging violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "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," the Company said. PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Gabriela Marin, and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Eric Braverman, Path Medical P.C., and Total Health Nutrients, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05852 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages on time in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants operate a medical clinic that focuses on "brain health" and longevity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Orin Robert Kurtz, Esq. Gardy & Notis, LLP 501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com PC ADVANTAGE: "Camilleri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond Louis Camilleri, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. P.C. Advantage, Inc., Chris Cohen, and Porteck Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a medical billing company with its principal place of business located at 730 Montauk Highway, Center Moriches, New York 11934. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF YALE POLLACK P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 634-6340 Facsimile: (516) 634-6341 E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Role in Ponzi Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Amy Dalrymple, writing for Inforum, reported that ore than 100 investors from around the world have joined a class action lawsuit alleging that a Bismarck law firm played a role in a Ponzi scheme that bilked people out of $62 million. A complaint filed in U.S. District Court alleges that the Pearce & Durick law firm, which was the escrow agent for North Dakota Developments LLC, committed legal malpractice by failing to advise investors they were investing in unlawful securities. In May, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint against North Dakota Developments and its owners, Robert L. Gavin and Daniel J. Hogan, alleging they had defrauded investors since 2012 for North Dakota oilfield housing projects that were never finished. Investigative records indicate 980 investors from 66 countries invested more than $62 million in North Dakota Developments, according to the North Dakota Securities Department. Investors thought they were buying an interest in housing for oil workers in the booming Bakken region, but the high returns they were promised never materialized and the developers are accused of misusing investor money. The class action case alleges that investors were required to pay legal fees to the Pearce & Durick firm for review of documents related to the investment deals. That formed an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the investors, the lawsuit alleges, and the firm should have advised investors they were investing in unlawful securities. "We think they should have alerted investors about a number of pretty serious red flags or outright violations," said securities lawyer Alan Rosca of Cleveland, one of several lawyers representing the investors. But the firm denies that it represented the investors, and made that fact clear to investors when they signed their purchase agreements, said attorney Richard Thomas, who represents both the firm and Bismarck attorney Jonathan Sanstead, who is named in the case. The firm's role as escrow agent was to distribute money from investors to the developer according to stages outlined in the escrow agreement, Thomas said. If the allegations against North Dakota Developments are true, the developers misled the law firm about meeting those stages, Thomas said. Thomas said the lawsuit is a consequence of the defrauded investors seeking recovery. "We have now become a target. We don't believe that that action and activity is justified by the actual facts," said Thomas, of Arden Hills, Minn. "A lot of people were misled, including the firm, if the allegations against the principals prove true." The firm has not yet filed an answer to the legal complaint. Several investors from Singapore are named in the class action complaint, but the case has grown to include more than 100 investors from several countries, Rosca said. The attorneys, which include co-counsel Mac Schneider of Grand Forks, are talking to 250 to 300 more potential clients from around the world, Rosca said. Many lost between $50,000 and $100,000 while others lost a few hundred thousand, Rosca said. "You hear some really sad stories," Rosca said. "Life savings that are gone and medical situations that they can't take care of because the money is gone. It's really sad." Rosca said the class action case does not allege any fraud or knowing misconduct by the firm or Sanstead, a former partner with the firm. "The court will decide who's liable and for what," Rosca said. "I don't think the firm did anything intentionally wrong." Additional class action cases are possible. The investors' attorneys are still reviewing evidence and may file lawsuits against additional defendants, said Rosca, whose practice specializes in representing defrauded investors. "Schemes of this size, you can hardly perpetrate them alone," Rosca said. "Once you get above a certain amount, you really need a lot of professional infrastructure, for lack of a better term." Meanwhile, the company that provides malpractice insurance for Pearce & Durick has filed its own lawsuit against the firm and Sanstead. ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. is asking the court to rule that it doesn't have a duty to cover claims against the firm and Sanstead. Sanstead denies the allegations in that case and has cooperated fully with the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, said attorney Tim Purdon, who is representing Sanstead in the insurance coverage case. Sanstead is no longer with the firm and has started his own practice, Purdon said. "His reputation speaks for itself in the legal community," Purdon said. Phillip Cole, a Minneapolis attorney representing Pearce & Durick in the insurance coverage case, said the firm did not profit from the situation. "They were a victim, just like these investors, I'm afraid," Cole said. PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces "Albanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Albanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premium Retail Services, Inc., Case No. RG15779826 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Premium Retail Services, Inc. provides product promotion services to manufacturers and retailers of electronics throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com PRESSURE CONTROL: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pressure Control Specialties, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv- 02104 (W.D. La., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pressure Control Specialties, LLC provides well pressure control related services to wire-line and related types of operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W DEJEAN P O Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com RAM'S HEAD: Ex-Pres. Gets 2-Year Jail Over Bathroom Recordings -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Broom, writing for WUSA9, reported that the former president of a group of popular regional night clubs was given a partially suspended two-year sentence after he admitted to recording unsuspecting women using one club's bathroom over a three-year period. Prosecutors revealed there may be more locations where similar video was recorded. Former Ram's Head group president Kyle Muehlhauser, 37, will spend 90 days of his sentence in the Howard County jail, and could serve the entire two years if he violates any of the conditions of his release. He was handcuffed and led from court. Prosecutors were able to identify at least two victims from video seized when one of the women contacted police after noticing a small camera drop to the floor in a bathroom she was using at the Ram's Head Tavern at Savage Mill, which Muehlhauser owns. "I'm constantly afraid someone is out there to violate my privacy --- it makes me sick to my stomach," one of the victims told District Court Judge Wayne Brooks at a sentencing hearing. "Your actions will have everlasting impacts on their lives," Brooks told Muehlhauser as he rendered the sentence. Muelhauser's attorney Jason Shapiro explained that the night club owner suffered stress, which led him to voyeurism. Muelhauser is being treated by a psychologist and is not a threat to the community, Shaprio said. The Ram's Head Group operates seven night club and restaurant venues in Maryland ranging from smaller tavern-style facilities to large concert venues, including Pier Six in Baltimore. Muehlhauser and the group are now the targets of a class action lawsuit. "There are potentially thousands of victims," said attorney G. Russell Donaldson, who has already filed one suit. Donaldson said any woman who visited bathrooms at the Ram's Head Tavern at Savage during a three year period from 2012 to February of 2015 could have been victimized without knowing it. Muelhauser's attorney disputes the claim. "He placed a camera once three years ago, and then did it again occasionally starting about a year and a half ago," Shaprio said. "This was not going on all the time." RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rockaway" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Rockaway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11346-CB (Del. Ch., July 28, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Receptos, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company to Celgene Corporation, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolic diseases. Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective HVAC Systems ----------------------------------------------------- Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers affected by defective products, is one of several law firms to file a class action lawsuit over residential heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems manufactured by Rheem. The suit alleges that the systems are defective and that Rheem failed to honor its warranty. Parker Waichman LLP filed the suit alongside Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. The case is Argabright et al v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-05243-JBS-AMD in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As with all HVAC systems, Rheem HVACs utilize a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator to function properly; the systems also use refrigerant to operate. According to the lawsuit, the systems' evaporator coils are defective because they degrade and subsequently release refrigerant. The type of deterioration allegedly seen in Rheem HVAC systems is known as formicary corrosion, also known as pinhole corrosion or ants nest corrosion. Allegedly, this causes the refrigerant to leak, which impedes normal function. The lawsuit alleges that this defect occurs with normal and intended use and is not a result of installation. "By filing this lawsuit on behalf of Rheem HVAC customers, we hope to hold the manufacturer accountable for their defective products," said Gary Falkowitz, Managing Attorney at Parker Waichman. "Our clients spent good money on a product that did not perform as promised." The lawsuit alleges that Rheem provided express warranties on all Rheem HVACs, including that they would be "free from defects in materials and workmanship ... in normal use and service..." from five to ten years. However, the systems allegedly failed to live up to this claim and the systems were not fit for ordinary use. Additionally, the suit alleges that Rheem failed to fully honor the existing warranty and did not compensate plaintiffs under its warranties. Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations to consumers who have purchased a Rheem HVAC system. For more information, please visit the firm's Product Liability page at yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1(800) LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636). RK LIQUORS: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Villalobos, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. RK Liquors, Inc. and Ambrish Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-06615 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a liquor store in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 219-6838 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Levi Korinsky Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I ("SandRidge Mississippian") SDT, -2.86% pursuant to the Initial Public Offering on or about April 7, 2011 and/orbetween April 7, 2011 and November 8, 2012. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. If you purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge Mississippian shares pursuant to the IPO and/or between April 7, 2011 and November 8, 2012, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/sandridge-mississippian-sdtor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that SandRidge Mississippian made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (a) the underlying properties from which the royalty interests were conveyed to the Company consisted of far more low-margin natural gas deposits and far fewer high-margin oil deposits; and (b) the reserves of oil in the underlying properties associated with SandRidge Mississippian were vastly overstated. If you suffered a loss in SandRidge Mississippian you have until August 10, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. SAKUMA BROTHERS: Farmworkers Entitled to Break Pay -------------------------------------------------- Gene Johnson, writing for KomoNews, reported that farmworkers who are paid by how much they pick are entitled to separate, additional pay for their rest breaks, the Washington Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion that could have major implications for the state's agriculture industry -- as well as other businesses where workers are paid by task rather than by time. But it's unclear whether the ruling will actually result in the workers being paid more, or whether companies will simply restructure the way they pay. "Paid breaks for workers are a basic principle embodied in state law, and this decision ensures that some agricultural workers, who often perform difficult work for low pay, aren't denied this right arbitrarily, based solely on their compensation method," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office supported the pickers. The decision came in a case involving Sakuma Brothers Farms, a berry farm in Skagit County, north of Seattle. Some of the farm's pickers -- seasonal, migrant workers, mainly from Mexico -- filed a federal class-action lawsuit in 2013, saying they were entitled to paid rest breaks under state law. Sakuma Brothers agreed to pay the 900 workers and their lawyers $850,000 to settle the claims of unpaid back wages for rest breaks, but it denied further liability. The company said it agrees that workers are entitled to paid rest breaks -- 10 minutes every four hours -- but it said the amount it paid the pickers was inflated to already include compensation for rest breaks. The federal court asked the state Supreme Court to weigh in, and the justices said Sakuma's practice, which it has since abandoned, wasn't good enough. Because workers were paid by how much they pick, they could make more money by working through their rest breaks, which can be bad for their health, Justice Mary Yu wrote for the court. "The current piece rate scheme encourages employees to 'work harder' by skipping breaks," Yu wrote. "That result ... effectively decreases the frequency of employees' rest periods; it incentivizes Sakuma to employ fewer employees; and it fosters a culture of working through rest breaks." Some employment lawyers suggested the ruling could apply not just to farmworkers, but others paid on a "piece-rate" basis, such as janitors or hotel housekeepers paid by the floor or the room they clean. A California appeals court made a similar ruling two years ago in a case involving grocery store truck drivers paid by the mile, rather than by the hour. That decision is being appealed. The Washington justices also made clear that companies must pay the workers the rate they make when they're picking, rather than simply paying them the minimum wage during rest breaks. Dan Ford, a lawyer with Columbia Legal Services who represents the pickers, said there are an estimated 200,000 seasonal farmworkers in Washington. "Being paid for breaks is critical for the compensation farmworkers should receive," he said. "If breaks are not properly compensated, then workers are in the position of losing wages, or losing breaks." Ford said he expected some pickers might bring lawsuits similar to the one Sakuma's employees brought, seeking additional pay for past rest breaks. In an emailed statement, Sakuma Brothers noted that it no longer pays workers strictly by how much they pick. Instead, it's paying $10 an hour plus a bonus of up to $30 per hour based on the number of pounds picked. Under the system, the company's blackberry pickers have been making more than $20 per hour on average, it said. "The decision by the Washington State Supreme Court confirms that our current, active pay system goes above and beyond industry standards and is one of the most progressive in the state, if not the country," said Sakuma Chief Executive Danny Weeden said. Jeff Resnick, general counsel at the Irvine, California-based Western Growers Association, said he expects other agricultural companies in Washington to adopt similar pay structures. "Agricultural employers who have been paying by piece-rate for decades are now informed that they've been doing it wrong all along," Resnick said. "This really changes the way agricultural employers are going to pay their workers." SIGNAL INT'L: Agreed to Pay $20MM in Trafficking Suits, Docs Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Meier, writing for The New York Times, reported that Signal International, a maritime construction company, filed for bankruptcy on, six months after a jury ruled that it, and other defendants, should pay $15 million in a prominent case involving the labor abuses and trafficking of foreign workers into the United States. In filings in a Delaware bankruptcy court, Signal said it had agreed to pay $20 million to resolve claims by the five workers from India involved in that lawsuit and other Indian laborers in related actions, who said they were falsely lured to the United States with promises of good jobs and American visas. Scrutiny has been growing on labor abuses involving foreign laborers, including during construction in Qatar for the 2022 World Cup as well as on major projects in other Persian Gulf countries, like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Several major American construction firms, including CH2M, Aecom and Bechtel, manage or oversee those projects. On, an official of Amnesty International testifying at a Senate subcommittee hearing on the FIFA corruption scandal said such companies had an obligation to address the conditions faced by such workers, which reports have described as akin to indentured servitude. The settlement was unusual because when a company files for bankruptcy, litigation against it freezes and the litigants stand behind secured creditors when it comes to receiving proceeds. But Signal officials and plaintiffs' lawyers negotiated the settlement as part of the bankruptcy filing. "This agreement will ensure some compensation for these workers, who only sought a better life when they took these jobs," said Alan Howard, a lawyer at Crowell & Moring involved in the case. The lawsuit against Signal, which is based in Mobile, Ala., was initially brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center and was later joined by lawyers working on a pro bono basis from about 10 major law firms including Crowell & Moring; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and McDermott, Will & Emory. The Signal case began in 2008 after hundreds of laborers from India arrived to work at the company's facilities in Pascagoula, Miss., and Orange, Tex. The company builds and repairs oil- drilling rigs and ships. The metal fitters and welders said they had paid over $20,000 to a labor recruiter in India to get jobs, and to an American company and lawyer who said they would obtain permanent visas, known as green cards, for them. But the workers, who came into the United States under a temporary visa program, soon realized they were misled, and found themselves housed in squalid conditions for which Signal charged them over $1,000 a month. In 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the Indian workers against Signal and others. The case almost came to an end when a federal judge refused to allow it to go forward as a class action, but the big law firms salvaged it by agreeing to represent individual workers on a pro bono basis, said Daniel Werner, a lawyer at the Southern Poverty Law Center. In bankruptcy court papers, Signal said it was facing 11 lawsuits involving 227 foreign workers. Of the $15 million awarded by the jury, $11 million was assessed against Signal and that award was upheld in May. In its filing, Signal said the settlement plan, which a judge must still approve, covered "the vast majority" of Indian workers bringing actions, adding that it anticipated more laborers would join into it. SOLARWINDS INC: GPM Files Securities Class Action in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of a class of purchasers of the securities SolarWinds, Inc. between April 28, 2015 and July 16, 2015, inclusive. Shareholders have 60 days from the date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. SolarWinds and its subsidiaries design, develop, market, sell and support enterprise-class information technology ("IT") infrastructure management software to IT professionals in organizations of all sizes. The Company's products are purportedly designed to help enable efficient and effective management of IT networks, systems and application infrastructure. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company's domestic business was struggling against the Company's expectations; (2) that the Company's license sales growth of core license products and resulting license revenue was lower than expectations and guidance; (3) that the overall quality of the "demand capture" the Company was garnering for certain core products was dropping; and, (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 16, 2015, after the market closed, the Company disclosed its revenues for the second quarter of 2014 fell below analyst expectations and lowered revenue guidance for the next few quarters. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. SPOKEO INC: Media, Tech Cos. ask SCOTUS to Restrict Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that it would have been shocking if big business hadn't turned out in force to back the search engine Spokeo at the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case with potentially huge consequences for class action defendants. And since the business lobby isn't one to ignore an opportunity like Spokeo, the questions at the filing deadline were how many amicus briefs would come in and whether new industries would add to the chorus urging the justices to restrict class actions claiming statutory damages for violations of federal laws. The answers: More than three dozen companies, trade groups and state attorneys general spoke up for Spokeo in 17 amicus briefs, including filings from media, banking and retail businesses that hadn't previously been involved in the case. It looks like corporate defendants do indeed regard Spokeo as a potential blockbuster. The case presents the question of whether Congress can confer constitutional standing on plaintiffs who haven't suffered a concrete injury but have been granted the right to bring private actions for violations of federal statutes. As Spokeo's lawyers from Mayer Brown discuss in their merits brief, dozens of federal consumer statutes include such provisions, and plaintiffs lawyers have become adept at turning one client's claim for small statutory damages into class actions involving thousands or even millions of class members. Spokeo argued that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ignored Supreme Court precedent on constitutional standing when it held in 2014 that a violation of name plaintiff Thomas Robins' statutory rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act was enough to satisfy Article III's requirement that a plaintiff show injury in order to sue in federal court. Spokeo's brief also suggested that the Supreme Court can sidestep the constitutional question by finding that Congress did not clearly state in the FCRA that otherwise uninjured plaintiffs have a right to sue. According to Spokeo -- and to amicus filings by the Retail Litigation Center and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other trade groups -- the Supreme Court should interpret the FCRA to permit the recovery of statutory damages only if a plaintiff can demonstrate a concrete injury from the defendant's violation of the law. The most interesting amicus briefs are by companies describing the impact on their businesses of class actions based on statutory damages. The tech industry, for instance, has been complaining for years about cases brought under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In a joint Spokeo brief, Facebook, Google, Netflix and other tech companies and trade groups argue that the 9th Circuit's ruling in Spokeo puts them at special risk because their "huge volume of daily interactions with millions of different people renders them particularly vulnerable to putative class actions that allege bare statutory violations and claim statutory damages for enormous putative classes." (The brief includes a long recounting of class actions tech companies have supposedly been terrorized into settling by the threat of crippling statutory damages to million-member classes.) Banking groups claim in their Spokeo brief that they have been victimized by opportunistic plaintiffs lawyers wielding statutory damages claims for ATM notification and credit reporting violations. And Time Inc and media trade groups assert in a Spokeo amicus brief that privacy class actions against increasingly diversified media businesses are threatening free speech. "The fear of large civil damages awards, and the mere cost of waging a defense against numerous specious claims, inhibits the development of content by media companies, and thus indirectly chills speech," the brief said. "This is especially true in the case of statutes such as the Video Privacy Protection Act, where the delivery of content itself (digital video) may trigger a claim." Robins, the class action plaintiff who triggered this fight over constitutional standing and statutory claims, was represented at the certiorari stage by Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler. Gupta has now been replaced by Robins' original class action counsel from Edelson, the Chicago plaintiffs firm. I spoke on with name partner Jay Edelson, who is planning to argue the Spokeo case, about Spokeo's amici. Edelson, who is known for his brash style and ambitious legal theories, said he is neither surprised nor worried that so many businesses have sided with Spokeo. "This is a big issue for a lot of companies," he said. "They are looking out for their own self-interest." Edelson said he is expecting amicus support from a broad array of consumer, civil rights and employment rights groups in August, after his firm files Robins' brief on the merits. He also said the Justice Department, which unsuccessfully argued against Supreme Court review of the case, is expected to file an amicus brief, though he declined to comment on what the solicitor general may say. Edelson said his firm decided to handle the Supreme Court briefing and argument itself because "we feel like we have a unique voice and understand these issues deeply from litigating hundreds of these cases over a decade." Among other points he intends to make is that businesses are vastly exaggerating the existential threat from class actions for statutory violations. Of all of the cases mentioned by Spokeo's amicus supporters, he said, there's not a single example of a verdict or settlement for hundreds of millions of dollars. "It's just not true that (plaintiffs) lawyers are flocking to statutory damages cases," he said. "They're hard cases." STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Radio New Zealand International reports that a federal court in California has granted preliminary approval for a class action settlement involving the parent company of Starkist Samoa on a claim it under filled its canned tuna products. The agreement is for Pittsburgh-based StarKist Co to pay US$S12 million dollar to settle the suit. A California resident Patrick Hendricks filed a complaint against StarKist, which he accused of among other things, negligent misrepresentation, and violating California consumer laws, by under-filling its canned tuna products. StarKist rejected the suit and sought for its dismissal without success. But it wasn't until May this year, that both sides reached preliminary settlement agreement, which required approval of the federal court in San Francisco. Under the order Starkist is to pay US$8 million dollars in cash and US$4 million in vouchers for StarKist products. STATE FARM: 5th Circ. Upholds Verdict in Whistleblower Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin Bronson, writing for Insurance Business US, reported that a recent court decision favoring whistleblowers who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. for fraud in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has opened the door for a potential class-action lawsuit against the insurer, attorneys involved with the case say. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor of Cori and Kary Rigsby, two sisters that sued State Farm on behalf of the government after witnessing the carrier attempt to shift claims to the federal flood insurance program that should have been paid by State Farm. The sisters testified that they witnessed State Farm pressure engineers to rule that damage to homes along the Mississippi Coast following Katrina was caused by flood waters -- not wind. Their statements were instrumental in securing a 2013 victory for the Biloxi family, who won a fraud case against the insurer after State Farm falsely denied claims for their damaged home. Similar allegations were widespread during the aftermath of the storm, the Associated Press reports, though with many homes destroyed to the very foundation, proving a case against insurers was difficult. The decision allows the Rigsbys and the government to seek more evidence of widespread fraud against the National Flood Insurance Program. "The Rigsbys' allegations and trial evidence -- which extend far beyond the realm of the McIntosh claim -- entitle them to at least some additional discovery," the judges in the case wrote. That could mean additional litigation woes for State Farm, August Matteis, a lawyer for the Rigsbys said. "Because we won the bellwether McIntosh trial, we can now go forward taking discovery to determine the full scope of State Farm's fraud," Matteis told the AP. "We believe that this could involve thousands of claims in Mississippi. Under the court ruling, State Farm is required to pay $750,000 in damages, with 30% going to the Rigsbys and the rest going to the federal government. Matteis won $2.9 million in legal fees and expenses. State Farm reasserted its innocence and said it was disappointed in the court's ruling. A spokesman for the company said the insurer "acted responsibly" in handling claims stemming from Katrina and "appropriately follow[ed] all government guidelines." TEXAS: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Suits Against 53 Cities ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Welch, writing for Amarillo Globe News, reports that a federal judge on July 29 not only again dismissed the case against 53 Texas cities with red-light cameras and the companies that operate them, but also denied a request to send the case back to state court where it began. Judge John McBryde said James Watson had no standing to pursue a class-action case against the cities, including Amarillo, after getting a ticket for his vehicle running a red light in the Metroplex city of Southlake. He left Watson free to pursue his claims against Southlake, according to the July 29 order. Mr. Watson's lawyers asserted a number of claims, including an assertion that the cities' red-light ordinances and the Texas law allowing the creation of those ordinances were unconstitutional. They claimed the state and cities had "fleeced" owners of vehicles photographed running red lights of more than $128 million, Judge McBryde wrote in his ruling. Mr. Watson wanted the state and cities to pay that back. Amarillo has collected penalties of more than $1.5 million since starting its program in 2007 and sent the same amount to the state, according to city records. The suit started in state court in April, but was transferred to federal court in May because it contained claims of violations of federal organized crime laws and the possibility it could gain class action status. Even though Watson dropped the federal claims, Judge McBryde said he had discretion to rule on whether the case could proceed, citing a recent Fifth Circuit ruling. "It is this court's established precedent that once a case is properly removed (to federal district court), the district court retains jurisdiction even if the federal claims are later dropped or dismissed," the Fifth Circuit ruling states. Judge McBryde tentatively granted the motions on July 6 and 9 of the cities to dismiss the case against them, but Watson asked him to amend that ruling. Judge McBryde also said Mr. Watson appeared to be shopping for the most favorable court by filing a case in state court that had elements almost guaranteeing it would end up in federal court and then removing those elements to get it sent back to state court when the case wasn't going well for Watson. "Moreover, there is no question but that if the action is remanded (to state court), plaintiff will attempt to retry the issues this court has already decided, thus causing an unnecessary duplication of effort by the state court and the parties," the July 29 order states. Mr. Watson filed a notice of appeal on July 29 after Judge McBryde filed his order. TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- John Frisco, and others similarly-situated v. Top Hands Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2015), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant provides oilfield services to oil and gas exploration companies throughout South Texas and Eagle Ford Shale area. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Ste 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 653-3300 Fax: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com UBER: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising --------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class action accuses Uber of falsely advertising that it is cheaper than traditional cab companies. Sennett Devermont used San Francisco-based Uber Technologies in Superior Court alleging violation of California's unfair competition law. The case was the Top Download for Courthouse News. "Plaintiff has received advertisements from Uber and viewed advertisements provided to the general public regarding claims that Uber is 30 percent cheaper than a cab for specific routes. Based on his use of Uber, Uber's statements are not true during certain peak times," the eight-page complaint states. Nor does Uber make clear that credits for customers who refer new business have an expiration date, Devermont says. It discloses that only after getting the referral. A state administrative law judge on recommended that Uber be fined $7.3 million for violating state laws and have its license suspended , pending an appeal or a California Public Utilities commissioner review. State prosecutors are scrutinizing Uber and its competitor Lyft, both of which use crowd-sourced drivers who do not need a commercial license to drive for the companies. Several class-action employment lawsuits are pending against the companies, and some cities in the United States and Europe have barred them as unfair competitors. start-ups. Smartphone users can submit a trip request to an Uber driver, and pay with a credit card on the app. The California Labor Commissioner in June challenged Uber's business model by awarding driver Barbara Berwick $4,152 in reimbursable business expenses and interest, finding she was an Uber "employee" rather than independent contractor. Class action lawsuits quickly followed. Devermont seeks class certification, a preliminary and permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits, and general, special and consequential damages. He is represented by Heath McKeon of Cohen McKeon. Uber did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UCLA Health System, UCLA Medical Sciences, The Regents of the University of California, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. BC589327 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), arises from the Defendants' failure to adequately secure the private, personal financial information of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated from being stolen by cyber thieves. The Defendants operate a medical and surgical hospital with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095-7131. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4738 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com RSoffin@ForThePeople.com VASCO DATA: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda J. Rossbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., T. Kendall Hunt, and Clifford K. Bown, Case No. 1:15-cv-06605 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Vasco Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and supports hardware and software security systems that manage and secure access to information assets worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq. Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: lcludwig@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com jahood@pomlaw.com W2007 GRACE: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Stipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the stipulation in a class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved by the federal court and remains subject to final approval. In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson Lawsuit) was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee (the Chancery Court) by several current and former shareholders of the Series B and C preferred shares of Grace Acquisition I. The complaint, which alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that resulted in the loss of Series B and Series C preferred share value, names Grace Acquisition I, members of Grace Acquisition I's board of directors, PFD Holdings, LLC (PFD Holdings), GS Group, Whitehall, Goldman Sachs Realty Management, L.P. and Grace I as defendants. On October 4, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the Federal Court). In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to the Chancery Court, which the defendants opposed. On July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand. In addition, in January 2014, the defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and the motion was fully briefed on April 24, 2014. In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff in the same Chancery Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar breaches against several of the same defendants named in the Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's board of directors. In January 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants in the Dent Lawsuit agreed to stay that case until the motion to remand in the Johnson Lawsuit was decided. As stipulated by the parties, plaintiff must file any response to defendants' motion to stay within ten business days after notice of the Federal Court decision denying the remand motion. Defendants notified plaintiff of the resolution of the remand motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay. In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a settlement of the claims raised in the Johnson Lawsuit. On August 22, 2014, the parties notified the Federal Court of the proposed settlement, and the Federal Court agreed that the parties would no longer be subject to pending deadlines in the current scheduling order. On September 2, 2014, in light of the proposed settlement, defendants filed a motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew that motion if the proposed settlement of the Johnson Lawsuit does not become final. The Federal Court granted the motion. The parties submitted the proposed settlement stipulation and related papers to the Federal Court for approval on October 9, 2014, and filed additional papers in support of settlement on December 4, 2014 and March 20, 2015. The stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Federal Court on April 30, 2015 and remains subject to final approval by the Federal Court. The stipulation of settlement would settle claims with respect to two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1) the "Holder Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of August 22, 2014 and through the effective time of the merger contemplated by the stipulation, hold the preferred stock, excluding defendants and their affiliates, persons who opt out of the Holder Class and holders of dissenting shares and (2) the "Seller Class" consisting of all persons who sold some or all of their shares of preferred stock between October 25, 2007 and October 8, 2014, inclusive, and suffered a loss, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and persons who sold shares to PFD Holdings, and persons who opt out of the Seller Class. The stipulation of settlement generally provides for the following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that will result in the exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of Series B and C preferred stock outstanding; (2) the establishment of a $6 million fund to be distributed pursuant to a plan of allocation to members of the Seller Class; and (3) an award of $4 million in counsel fees, subject to approval by the Federal Court. Therefore, during the second quarter of 2014, the Company accrued $24.25 million related to the agreement which is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets and in contingent loss on litigation settlement in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. The Company anticipates funding the settlement with cash on hand or, if necessary, funding from Whitehall. The proposed settlement in the Johnson Lawsuit purports to encompass the claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit. Ongoing defense costs will be expensed as incurred. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Reached Settlement in "Freedman" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, that on June 30, 2015, the Company, together with certain current and former officers, has resolved a purported securities class action lawsuit previously disclosed in the Company's public filings. The lawsuit, captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY), related to the Company's restatement of its historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. The settlement is subject to notice to the class, approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and other conditions. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $120,000,000 in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and the unconditional release of all claims, known or unknown, that settlement class members brought or could have brought against the Company and individual defendants related to the facts and allegations in the litigation. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing related to the allegations in the litigation. The Company believes the settlement of this litigation is a further step towards resolving historical issues associated with the Company's financial statement restatements related to the material weakness over accounting for income taxes. The Company successfully completed the remediation of this material weakness in 2013. WILLOWTOWN INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Garcia and Romualdo Gomez Perez, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. Willowtown Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Willowtown Inc. operates a gourmet market and cafe in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Schools Lose Contraception Coverage Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Examiner Enterprise reported that Oklahoma Wesleyan University and three other Christian universities in Oklahoma lost a religious freedom case on when a federal appellate court overturned a lower court's ruling. In 2013, a district court had temporarily halted enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion-pill mandate after the schools objected to it. In a statement issued morning, OKWU President Dr. Everett Piper expressed his disappointment in the 2-1 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo. "We see this ruling as an arrogant disregard for women. It is condescending and anti-choice," Piper said. The Little Sisters of the Poor homes in Denver and Baltimore were lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court on behalf of Little Sisters and about 400 other organizations -- including the four Oklahoma schools and other Christian-aligned universities and colleges. "The federal government is literally telling the 70-year-old nuns at the Little Sisters of the Poor, as well as, all the female employees of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, that they are not intelligent enough to choose what contraception should or should not be included in their personal health insurance," Piper said. "How can we stand for such disrespect for women? At OKWU, we believe our female employees should be able to make their own decisions on such personal matters and we will continue to fight any government hubris to the contrary." The Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010, requires group health plans and insurance issuers to provide coverage for several preventive services for women. A year later, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule mandating that those services include "all FDA-approved contraception methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." In 2013, HHS added an accommodation meant to alleviate such concerns. The new rules included an exemption for churches and some other religious employers. For those the rules did not exempt -- including universities operated by religious orders and denominations, and nonprofits such as the Little Sisters -- they introduced a new protocol: employers were to inform the government of their religious objections, and the government would require a third party, such as the employer's insurer, to provide the coverage to employees free of charge. Officials said the new rules would "balance our commitment to helping ensure women have continued access to coverage for preventative services important to their health, with the administration's goal of respecting religious beliefs." The Little Sisters and other organizations disagreed. Signing the form that allows a third party to provide the services would violate their beliefs, they said. In September 2013, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of the four universities, challenging the Affordable Care Act mandate that forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception under threat of heavy penalties. The lawsuit -- in which the schools specifically object to providing coverage for abortions -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the title, Southern Nazarene University v. Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius is the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which administers enactment and compliance with the Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit argued that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The suit claimed that the federal government continues "to treat entities like the universities as second-class religious organizations, not entitled to the same religious freedom rights as substantially similar entities that qualify for the exemption" to the mandate, and that the "rationale for entirely exempting churches and integrated auxiliaries from the regulations -- their employees are likely to share their religious convictions - - applies equally to the Universities." In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot ruled that the four universities were exempt from including such contraceptives in their insurance coverage to their employees while their lawsuit challenging the mandate is pending. The mandate requires that emergency birth control methods be covered by health insurance policies. In his ruling, Friot explained that the schools are "Christ- centered institutions" that believe it would be wrong and sinful for them to provide these birth control methods. He said the schools do not oppose any of the other mandated products. The Denver court overturned that ruling on, saying it's the insurance companies that provide the contraception not the universities. The judges ruled that the government's accommodation offer provides sufficient relief. "Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of plaintiffs' beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme relieves plaintiffs of their obligations under the mandate and does not substantially burden their religious exercise . . . or infringe upon their First Amendment rights," Circuit Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr., wrote in the ruling. VICTORIA, AU: 2013 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- NineNews.com reported that victims of a Victorian bushfire which destroyed nine houses and injured 12 people have launched a class action against a man they say negligently started the 2013 fire. The January 8 fire burnt 1300 hectares in Snake Valley, near Ballarat, and destroyed the historic Carngham station. The class action is being driven by at least seven people affected by the fire. In a writ provided to the Supreme Court of Victoria in Ballarat, lead plaintiff Valerie Jackson claims a local farmer, who is now deceased, ignited the fire by driving his tractor. Family members, acting as executors for the farmer, need to respond to the writ within 10 days. X-L FOODS: Settlement Worked Out in 2012 E. Coli Outbreak Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Press reported that a deal has been worked out in a class-action lawsuit filed over an E. coli outbreak and the largest meat recall in Canadian history. The lawsuit is against X-L Foods, which operated a meat-packing plant in Brooks, Alberta during the tainted beef recall in 2012. Calgary lawyer Clint Docken says a four-million-dollar agreement has been reached subject to court approval this fall. X-L Foods recalled more than 1.8 million kilograms of beef in Canada and the United States in 2012. Docken says the majority of the settlement will be set aside for individuals who became ill from E. coli. Provincial health-care providers will get some money to cover the cost of looking after people who became ill. Consumers who were forced to throw away meat after the recall are also to be compensated. ********* 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 * * *