/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 35 Headlines 730 RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 99TH FLOOR: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages AG-MART PRODUCE: "Richardson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation AIPC ENERGY: "Roman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ALARM.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Suit Claims ALIMENTS GOURMETS: Recalls Taramosalata Products Due to Milk ALTRIA GROUP: 92 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts ALTRIA GROUP: 3,040 Engle Progeny State Court Cases Pending ALTRIA GROUP: Cases Subject to Federal Engle Settlement Dismissed ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7 Class Actions in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began Jan. 26 in Medical Monitoring Suit ALTRIA GROUP: 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 26 ALTRIA GROUP: 19 Courts Ruled on "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify "Aspinall" Class ALTRIA GROUP: Calif. Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin March 2 in "Larsen" Case ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin August 2 in "Miner" Case ALTRIA GROUP: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Class Cert. in "Pearson" ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Price" ALTRIA GROUP: USSTC Remains Severed from UST Litigation ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in "Vassallo" Action AMERICAN LOGOWEAR: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Calvillo" Suit Claims AMERICAN WAY: Illegally Misclassifies Workers, "Lopez" Suit Says AMICI'S FAMILY: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AMIRA NATURE: Defending Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Calif. ANN INC: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Unpaid Minimum Wages ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT APPLE INC: Faces Class Action over "Error 53" in iPhone 6 ARIZONA: 9th Cir. May Overturn Injunction in Immigration Suit ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Veteran Sues Over Signing Bonus B&D CORP: Faces "Arzola" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages BANCORPSOUTH INC: Reports $16.5MM Charge Related Settlement BARI IRON: Faces "Margousian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages BAY AREA: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BAY AREA: Faces "Baez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BAY AREA: Faces "Benlamlih" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BAYER CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pressman Claims BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Rapid-Fill Syringe Strip BESTAR INC: Recalls Five-Drawer Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard BIGGAR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lehofer" Suit for FLSA Violation BNY MELLON: Violated ERISA's Provisions, "Hartline" Suit Claims BOARD'S HONEY: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans BOFI HOLDING: Defending 2 Class Suits in California BRAINLAB AG: Recalls Radiosurgery System - Software C&J ENERGY: Faces "Cantu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CAFFI BROTHERS: "Parra" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA CAMPUS CREST: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sutton" Suit Says CAVIAR INC: "Levin" Case Stayed Pending Arbitrator's Decision CHANNEL PARTNERS: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Brown" Suit Asserts CHICAGO: Doesn't Properly Pay Water Chemists, "Atkins" Suit Says CHINA FUN: Violated FLSA & SCPWA, "Carbone" Suit Seeks Claims CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL: Parents of Sex Abuse Victims File Suit CLEVELAND: CPP Faces Tremont Suit Over Unlawful Energy Charges COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Dismissed Securities Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Sues Credit Card Receipt Misprint CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Suzara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CVB FINANCIAL: CA Affirms in Part Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit DANIEL B NY: "Jo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Damages DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Anesthesia Delivery System Main Units DE CAPITAL MORTGAGE: Violated FLSA & NYLA, "Negrin" Suit Claims DELTA GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Davila" Suit Says DEUTSCHE BANK: N.Y. Court Dismisses Investors' Suit DIRT DOCTORS: "Del Re" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Blum" Suit in Mass. Over Online Gambling ELI LILLY: Sued in Ind. Over Cymbalta's Withdrawal Symptoms ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado Plaintiff Seeks to Amend Suit ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits over Constant Contact Deal EOS PRODUCTS: Violated CLRA & UBPA, "Cronin" Suit Claims ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan ETS PC: "Pollard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages EXETER FINANCE: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Rivera" Proceedings EXPRESS TECHNOLOGIES: "Hower" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action in N.Y. FIFTH STREET: Shareholders File Class Action in Connecticut FITBIT INC: "McLellan" Sues Over Defective Heart Rate Meters FITNESS INT'L: "Briones" Suit Seeks Damages Under UCL FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Bicycles With Acros-Brand Upper Headsets FRANK A REICHL: Faces Westmore Cty. Suit Over Sherman Act Breach G3 GENUINE: Recalls Carbon Speed Tech Probes GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Ignition Switch Suit Upheld GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Faciane" Suit Over Zofran(R) GREAT-WEST: Faces "Krikorian" Suit Over Revenue Sharing Agreement GRS MANAGEMENT: "Morales" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Damages Under FLSA HAEMONETICS CORPORATION: Recalls Plasma Collection Systems HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari HEALTH CARRIERS: Faces "Sanabria" Suit for FLSA Violation HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces "Araiza" Suit Over Labor Law Breach HHGREGG INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Class Action Proceeds HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION: "Caido" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk HONDA: Recalls CR-V 2003 Models Due to Defective Airbag HONEYMOON CORP: "Hutchinson" Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wage IMS TRADING: Court Allows Plaintiff to File 2nd Amended Suit INVENSENSE INC: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Hall" Suit in La. Over Xarelto Drugs JPS COMPLETION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT KB HOME: Reached Tentative Mediated Settlement in 2 Lawsuits KELLOGG CO: "Hawkins" File Suit for Breach of Implied Warranty KELLY SERVICE: "Gaffers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Hedgecock" Action KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Karr" Action KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rooney" Case KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Spoleto" Class Action in Calif. LA CAR GUY: Violated FLSA & Labor Code, "Madrid" Suit Claims LA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime LAW OFFICE OF RORY: Faces "Cover" Suit Over Debt Collection LIBERTY MUTUAL: Case Remanded to King County Superior Court LINDER PSYCHIATRIC: Class Certification Denied in "Stallsmith" LONG ISLAND: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp Rattles MARINA BISCOCHOS: "Almonte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MASERATI: Recalls Granturismo Convertible 2016, 2016 Models MCFADGEN'S BAKERY: Recalls Fiesta Spice Cakes Due to Tree Nut MERCEDES-BENZ: Recall C Class 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Looms in British Columbia Class Action MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Cell Phone Litigation Remains Stayed MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active MEREDITH CORP: Defending Class Suits over Media General Merger MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kato" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Barbee" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies MILLSTONE KFC INC: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk NANCY'S RESTAURANT: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT NATURAL HEALTH: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports NETFLIX INC: March 17 Oral Argument Set in Class Action Appeal NORMANDIN'S: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege in Emails OSI SYSTEMS: $15,000,000 Settlement Granted Final Approval PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage PGA TOUR: N.D. Cal. Judge Throws Out PGA Caddies' Antitrust Suit R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. to Hear Age-Bias Case En Banc REGIS CORP: Faces Consumer & Wage and Hour Actions REGULARLY TECH: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Says RORY W. CLARK: Faces "Cove" 2nd Suit Over Debt Collection SELECT AUTO: Faces Spanish-Speaking Workers' FLSA Suit STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit Seeks Damages over Data Breach STEVE BEATTIE: "Calderon" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations TOP HANDS: "Triplett" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages TRADEHOMES SHOE: "Demoulin" Suit Alleges FACTA Violation TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Magier" Suit Over Under-filled Canned Tuna TRANSMISSION 4: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Says TTI FLOOR: Faces Consumer Class Suit in New Jersey TWO COUSIN'S: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.D. Cal. Judge May Toss Cabbies' Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Top Executives Face Charges in France UNIQUE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Hear Arguments in Data Collection Suits UNITIL CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for 1st Quarter 2016 VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI: CA Affirms Class Cert. of Speed Limit Suit XPRESS COURIER: "Riley" Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ZYNGA INC: Settlement of Suit over Inflated Shares Has Final OK ********* 730 RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Sime v. 730 Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Woodcleft Crab Shack, Andrew Drosinos and Joseph Drosinos, Case No. 608411/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 150 Woodcleft Avenue, Freeport, New York 11520. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P .C., 500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com 99TH FLOOR: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 99th FLOOR, LLC d/b/a Toptradelines and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-00018 (W.D. Wash., January 5, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq., the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida with its headquarters at 1000 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 103, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-3354. Its main business is credit repair and utilizes sending mass text messages as an advertising tool. Rodriguez was one such recipient. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Pesicka, Esq. CONCORD LAW, P.C. 6608 216th St. SW, Suite 107A Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Tel: (206) 512-8029 Fax: (206) 512-8914 Email: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com AG-MART PRODUCE: "Richardson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson, and all others similarly-situated v. AG-Mart Produce, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00103 (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant owns and operates a tomato company in Plant City, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com AIPC ENERGY: "Roman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Roman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIPC Energy, LLC and AIP, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv- 00035-CG-GBW (D. N. Mex., January 14, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an oilfield services company with significant operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq. HEARD ROBINS CLOUD LLP 505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 986-0600 Facsimile: (505) 986-0632 E-mail: jkaufman@heardrobins.com rbienvenu@heardrobins.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ALARM.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., et al. v. Alarm.com Incorporated and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06314-JCS (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiffs' telephone. The Defendants own a business that specializes in custom residential and commercial alarm systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Kerem M. Levitas, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan Rehe Marshall, Esq. Marc R. Weintraub, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com nweintraub@baileyglasser.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Michael Francis Ram, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com ALIMENTS GOURMETS: Recalls Taramosalata Products Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aliments Gourmets Medor Inc., Metro Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10247 Industry is recalling taramosalata products from the marketplace because they contain milk and sulphites which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk or sensitivity to sulphites should not consume the recalled products described below. The AVD Taramosalata may have been sold as is or in smaller packages and may not bear the same product name as described below. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products should check with their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk or sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life- threatening reaction. There has been one reported reaction associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ----- product --- ----- ---------- None A V D 1 pail All codes None Taramosalata (approximately where milk 3 kg) and sulphites are not declared on the label Adonis Taramosalata Approximately All codes Starts 250 g where milk and with sulphites are 0255181 not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/JQb7io ALTRIA GROUP: 92 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that as of January 26, 2016, 92 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 51 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs; 39 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA; and 2 verdicts that were initially returned in favor of plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending. Fifty-one verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and two verdicts (Graham and Skolnick) that were initially returned in favor of plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending. Thirty-nine verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 30 were state cases (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Hancock, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Blasco, Gonzalez, Banks, Surico, Baum, Bishop, Vila, McMannis, Collar, Suarez and Shulman) and 9 were federal cases (Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Wilder, Jacobson, Reider, Davis, Starbuck and Sowers). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of January 26, 2016. The juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants' favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial. In April 2015, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, rejecting defendants' argument that the statute of repose applies to fraud and conspiracy claims in Engle progeny cases. In the trial court, the case was retried and, in April 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 57 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 38 of the 57 cases. These 38 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. On December 18, 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. Of the 19 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006, but plaintiffs sought to reinstate the verdict, which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Judicial District's decision, finding that the plaintiffs filed the wrong motion in the wrong court. On November 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a new motion with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking to recall its original mandate, which the court denied on January 11, 2016. ALTRIA GROUP: 3,040 Engle Progeny State Court Cases Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that as of January 26, 2016, approximately 3,040 state court cases were pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,000 state court plaintiffs. The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008. As of January 26, 2016, approximately 3,040 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,000 state court plaintiffs. While a Federal Engle settlement agreement resolved nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of January 26, 2016, 23 cases were pending against PM USA in federal court representing the cases excluded from that agreement. Because of a number of factors, including, but not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed. In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial court be decertified and that members of the decertified class could file individual actions against defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants' cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3 million, representing its share of compensatory damages and interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme Court's order. In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling (described above) that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed either by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants' motion. In May 2007, defendants' motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which the United States Supreme Court denied later in 2007. In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members. In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs' claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice. ALTRIA GROUP: Cases Subject to Federal Engle Settlement Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that in December 2015, the cases subject to the Federal Engle Progeny Agreement were dismissed, thereby entitling plaintiffs to the $43 million escrow amount. In February 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") and Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard") reached a tentative agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the "Federal Engle Agreement"). Under the terms of the Federal Engle Agreement, PM USA paid into escrow approximately $43 million in March 2015. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $43 million in the first quarter of 2015. Federal cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those that have previously reached final verdict were not included in the Federal Engle Agreement. The Federal Engle Agreement was conditioned on approval by all federal court plaintiffs in the cases resolved by the Federal Engle Agreement or as the parties otherwise agree. The parties satisfied all conditions and, in December 2015, the cases subject to the Federal Engle Agreement were dismissed, thereby entitling plaintiffs to the $43 million escrow amount. ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7 Class Actions in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that as of January 26, 2016, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well. Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). As of January 26, 2016, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began Jan. 26 in Medical Monitoring Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that trial began January 26, 2016, in one medical monitoring class action. In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded, which the court denied. The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice. One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against PM USA. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. Trial began January 26, 2016 and will take place in multiple phases. Phase I will address liability. To the extent a Phase II is necessary, it would be tried to the court and address common questions of remedies and costs. In July 2015, both parties filed various motions relating to Phase I, including motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes. ALTRIA GROUP: 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that as of January 26, 2016, a total of 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in Good, and through January 26, 2016, 26 purported "Lights" class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding"). In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM USA. ALTRIA GROUP: 19 Courts Ruled on "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that as of January 26, 2016, in addition to a federal district court in the multidistrict litigation proceeding, 19 courts in 20 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case, although plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement of the judgment. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case discussed above. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify "Aspinall" Class -------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") has filed a motion to decertify the class in the "Aspinall" case. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in October 2015 and concluded in November 2015. On December 18, 2015, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. ALTRIA GROUP: Calif. Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review ------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that the California Supreme Court has denied a petition for review filed by plaintiffs in the "Brown" lawsuit. In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court. At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild," "low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases "ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of "light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit. Trial began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the class to include California residents who smoked in California one or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January 1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs and plaintiffs appealed the costs award. Oral argument occurred in September 2015 and subsequently the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment and dismissed PM USA's conditional cross- appeal as moot. The court also affirmed the cost award in favor of PM USA. On November 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which the court denied on December 9, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin March 2 in "Larsen" Case -------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that a re-trial is scheduled to begin on March 2, 2016, in the "Larsen" lawsuit. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Re-trial is scheduled to begin on March 2, 2016. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin August 2 in "Miner" Case ----------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that trial is scheduled to begin on August 2, 2016, in the "Miner" lawsuit. In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra Lights for personal consumption in Arkansas. Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's class certification order. In May 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to foreclose any recovery for cigarette purchases prior to 1999, when a private right of action was added to the consumer protection statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial court denied the motion in July 2015. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on August 2, 2016. ALTRIA GROUP: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Class Cert. in "Pearson" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that the Oregon Supreme Court has entered its judgment denying class certification in the "Pearson" lawsuit. In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a class. In February 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial court for further consideration of class certification. In July 2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October 2013, which the court accepted in January 2014. In October 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification, thereby reversing the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals. On November 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Oregon Supreme Court, which the court denied on December 10, 2015. On December 28, 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court entered its judgment denying class certification and remanding the claims of the individual plaintiffs for further proceedings. In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case. In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification and, in July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption grounds. ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Price" -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the "Price" action have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether Justice Karmeier should have recused himself. Trial in the "Price" case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result, the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to reinstate the original judgment. The trial court denied plaintiffs' petition in December 2012. In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. In April 2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment against PM USA. In May 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition for leave to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to appeal automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court. Also in May 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, which PM USA opposed. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took no action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order. Justice Karmeier denied plaintiffs' motion seeking his recusal. In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking recusal or disqualification of Justice Karmeier. In March 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request that it order the disqualification of Justice Karmeier and referred the recusal request to Justice Karmeier to decide. On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Judicial District's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' petition was improper, and dismissed the cause of action without prejudice to plaintiffs to file a motion to recall the mandate in the Illinois Supreme Court. On the same day, Justice Karmeier denied the recusal motion. On November 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed motions in the Illinois Supreme Court seeking to recall the 2005 mandate issued in PM USA's favor and for recusal of Justice Karmeier, both of which the court denied on January 11, 2016. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether Justice Karmeier should have recused himself. In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit (Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights" cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act are not (i) barred by the exemption in that statute based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (ii) preempted in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good. In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state statutory exemption. ALTRIA GROUP: USSTC Remains Severed from UST Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC"), along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from the UST LLC litigation since December 2001. UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of USSTC's smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001. ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in "Vassallo" Action ---------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, that there is currently no trial date set in the "Vassallo" lawsuit against U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC"). UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo). There is currently no trial date set in this case. AMERICAN LOGOWEAR: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Calvillo" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Marbella Calvillo, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Logowear & Promotional Products, LLC, and Keith H. Treiber, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv- 60074-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation, as well as additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act and Florida Movers and Warehousemen's Association. American Logowear is a Florida limited liability company, based in Pompano Beach, Florida. It provides promotional products. The Company specializes in embroidery and screen printing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW Attorney for Plaintiff 2100 Coral Way, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33145 Telephone: (305) 704 3172 Facsimile: (305) 722 7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com AMERICAN WAY: Illegally Misclassifies Workers, "Lopez" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ilia Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Way Transportation, Inc. & Volodymyr Federov, Case No. 15-6985 (Mass. Cmmw., December 30, 2015) seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendants' illegal misclassification of the Plaintiff and other former co-workers as independent contractors, rather than employees. American Way Transportation, Inc. provides medical transportation services to individuals, which generally includes driving individuals to doctor's appointments and related medical appointments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-723-7700 Facsimile: 617-227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com jfriedmann@rflawyers.com AMICI'S FAMILY: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Caballero, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Amici's Family Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Amici's Italian Restaurant & Pizzeria, Case No. 6:16-cv-00059-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amici's Family Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina J. Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com AMIRA NATURE: Defending Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amira Nature Foods Ltd said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in February 2015 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. "The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, name as defendants the Company and certain of our current and former officers and directors," the Company said. The consolidated lawsuit purports to state claims for violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, generally alleging that certain statements in the Company's Registration Statement and certain subsequent Exchange Act filings were false and misleading and seeking damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to contest these allegations vigorously and has moved to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. ANN INC: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Linares, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ann Inc., Ann Taylor Retail, Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC605635 (Cal. Sup. Ct., County of Los Angeles, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wages under California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. Ann Inc. is a Delaware corporation, based in New York, New York. The Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the retailing of women's apparel, shoes, and accessories under the Ann Taylor and LOFT brands. As of March 13, 2015, it operated 1,030 retail stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Canada comprising 245 Ann Taylor stores, 537 LOFT stores, 116 Ann Taylor Factory stores, 127 LOFT Outlet stores, and 5 Lou & Grey stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raul Perez, Esq. Melissa Grant, Esq. Arnab Banerjee, Esq. Suzy E.Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)556 4811 Facsimile: (310)943 0396 E-mail: Raul.Perez@capstonelawyers.com Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Leonardo Bernardo Rosales, Reynaldo Alavez and Javier Garcia (aka Marcos Oliver), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC. (d/b/a Antalia ), Ozan Ekmel Anda, Homayoun Payami, and David Kocak, Case No. 1:16-cv-00325-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant located at 17 W. 45th Street, New York, New York 10036, under the name Antalia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Action over "Error 53" in iPhone 6 --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in San Francisco accuses Apple of false advertising and unjust enrichment from its iPhone 6, which registers a fatal, disabling "Error 53" if owners update their phone or restore it from a backup. ARIZONA: 9th Cir. May Overturn Injunction in Immigration Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that civil libertarians say Arizona is parading around a wolf in sheep's clothing, but the Ninth Circuit seemed inclined Feb. 12 to overturn an injunction against an identity-theft law Arizona is using to target Mexican immigrants. The laws under scrutiny came into effect after the state's nativist sheriff, Joe Arpaio, made illegal immigration a central tenet of his platform. Though Arpaio's wave of anti-immigrant fervor lubricated the passage of House Bill 2779, lawmakers billed the Legal Arizona Workers Act as means of clamping down on aggravated identity theft. When coupled with House Bill 2745, a supplemental legislation passed the next year, the legislation became fodder for employment raids targeting Mexicans. One provision of the law criminalizes intent to gain employment using another person's identity. The civil rights group Puente Arizona challenged the constitutionality of both laws in a 2014 class action, prompting a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge David Campbell the following year. Though Campbell said Arpaio's raids likely usurped powers belonging to the federal government, Arizona has argued on appeal that the state and U.S. governments both have interests in prosecuting identity theft, the stated purpose of the laws. "Enjoining this law is causing real problems for the people of Arizona," Assistant Attorney General Dominic Draye told the Ninth Circuit at a hearing in San Francisco on Feb. 12, morning. All three judges on the appellate panel appeared to find this argument plausible. Judge Barry Silverman, for example, noted at one point that identity theft is the "fastest growing crime in America," a conclusion also reached by the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission. The problem requires both state and federal enforcement to address it, he added. Judge Richard Tallman added that the federal government sometimes prosecutes bank robbery, but this does not make the offense legal at the state level. Puente's attorney, Jessica Vosburgh with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, argued that lawmakers used the supposed anti- identity theft measure to disguise the state's assumption of powers it does not have. "In the height of anti-immigrant fervor in that state," Arizona passed legislation that "intruded upon that field and created conflict with federal law," she added. Vosburgh particularly cited the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which Congress passed in 1986. The third jurist on the panel, who joined the hearing by designation from Seattle, pressed Vosburgh on whether Arizona's laws would have been constitutional if the stated purpose of the statutes were not pretextual. If Arizona's lawmakers said, "'my goodness, identity theft is affecting so many people in so many ways,' would that be OK?" U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnick asked. Vosburgh replied that Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent would require judges at that point to, "not only to look at the purpose [of the laws], but also the effects." The panel did not indicate when they plan to rule. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Veteran Sues Over Signing Bonus ---------------------------------------------------- Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the California Army National Guard "conned" thousands of soldiers into reenlisting and is now attempting to recover signing bonuses a decade later, an Iraq war veteran claims in court. In a class action filed Feb. 10 in Sacramento, Calif Federal Court, plaintiff Bryan Strother says the National Guard offered soldiers bonuses in order to inflate its reserves and that the plaintiff class is "victims of one of the most egregious mass frauds in U.S. Military history." Shortly after signing his reenlistment contract in 2006, Strother says he was sent to Iraq and finished out the terms of his deal with honor and even appeared on a National Guard magazine. Three years later the government sent him a letter saying he shouldn't have received an enlistment bonus because he changed his military occupational specialty while serving in Iraq. Strother says his military record shows he didn't change his classification and regardless, the statute of limitations on his bonus expired years ago. He says defendants are attempting to recoup bonuses from more than 16,000 soldiers in similar positions. The class of veterans claims the National Guard and defendant the Department of Defense are notorious for failing to keep proper records and are known to "plug in to documents whatever they wish." "Plaintiffs do not owe any monies to the California Army National Guard because the running of the statute of limitations makes the matter moot," the complaint states. In the 20-page complaint, Strother says he wasn't allowed to contest the recoupment letter despite providing defendants records proving he didn't change his military occupational specialty. "The refusal to acknowledge plaintiff Sgt. Bryan James Strother did not change his military occupational specialty is either intentional or shows a complete lack of understanding by the Department of Defense," the complaint states. Neither the Defense Department nor Strother's attorney returned phone calls requesting comment Feb. 12, afternoon. According to the complaint, the United States Department of Defense has mismanaged $8.5 trillion and that it uses computer software dating back to 1959. The "archaic accounting systems" helped contribute to defendants' decision to recoup bonuses from veterans. Plaintiff class is asking for declaratory relief barring defendants from recouping enlistment bonuses as well as reasonable damages. Daniel Willman of Michigan and Samuel Lasser of San Francisco are representing the plaintiff class. B&D CORP: Faces "Arzola" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Arzola v. B&D Corp. of Florida, d/b/a Big And Deals and Super Center, Abuaish Enterprises of Florida, Inc., and Orab Abu Aish, Case No. 8:16-cv-00105-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 14, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate grocery and retail stores located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813 257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com BANCORPSOUTH INC: Reports $16.5MM Charge Related Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- BancorpSouth, Inc. (NYSE: BXS) said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2016, that non-interest expense for the fourth quarter of 2015 included the $16.5 million legal charge related to the settlement of the class action lawsuit related to overdraft fees. The settlement plus estimated administrative fees totaled $24.5 million, $8.0 million of which was accrued in prior years. BARI IRON: Faces "Margousian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norik Margousian, Henrik Hovsepian, and Karnek Trossian v. Bari Iron Design, Inc., et al., Case No. EC064850 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Bari Iron Design, Inc. operates a metal working and welding company that offers blacksmithing and sheet metal construction as well as other services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neda Roshanian, Esq. ROSHANIAN LAW FIRM 1000 North Central Avenue, Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 964-1122 E-mail: neda@roshanianlaw.com BAY AREA: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Alfaro and Vicky Williams v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15797839 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Venardi, Esq. Martin Zurada, Esq. VENARDI ZURADA LLP 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) 937-3900 Facsimile: (925) 937-3905 E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com BAY AREA: Faces "Baez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Baez, et al. v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15797837 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Venardi, Esq. Martin Zurada, Esq. VENARDI ZURADA LLP 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) 937-3900 Facsimile: (925) 937-3905 E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com BAY AREA: Faces "Benlamlih" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jalal Benlamlih v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15797841 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Venardi, Esq. Martin Zurada, Esq. VENARDI ZURADA LLP 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) 937-3900 Facsimile: (925) 937-3905 E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com BAYER CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pressman Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Pressman, Inc. d/b/a Pill Box Pharmacy, a Florida Limited Liability Company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer A.G., and John Does 1-12, Case No. 0:16-cv- 60089-WPD (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements in an attempt to market and sell its diabetic blood glucose monitoring equipment. The Defendants own and operate a chemical and health care corporation with its principal place of business in Whippany, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-658-5500 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Rapid-Fill Syringe Strip --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Posting date: December 23, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56430 Baxter Corporation is issuing a recall for all lots of rapid-fill syringe strip white 10ml for lack of evidence supporting the packaging claim for 12 month shelf-life on released product. Compromised packaging may provide insufficient protection against microbial contamination and/or exposure to endotoxins over the shelf-life of the product. Affected products A. RAPID-FILL SYRINGE STRIP WHITE 10ML Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 90200 Manufacturer: BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION A DIVISION OF BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 14445 GRASSLANDS DRIVE ENGLEWOOD 80112 Colorado UNITED STATES BESTAR INC: Recalls Five-Drawer Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Posting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56334 This recall involves Bestar juvenile five-drawer dressers available in two colours: white and Antigua (brown). The dressers are 48" high x 30" wide x 16" deep and weigh 108 lbs. They have a melamine surface and the drawer handles have a matte chrome finish. A tip-over restraint is supplied with each dresser to anchor the dressers to the wall. The model numbers for the two colours available are 49250-1152 (brown) and 49250-1117 (white). The dressers bear the following UPC number: 63753045292. The affected products can tip-over if not securely anchored to the wall using the tip-over restraints provided with the product, posing an entrapment hazard. Health Canada and Bestar inc. have received one report of a tip- over incident in Canada, resulting in an injury. Approximately 249 dressers were sold on line in Canada. The recalled dressers were sold between June 2014 and October 2015. Manufactured in Canada. Manufacturer: Bestar Inc. Lac-Megantinc Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using all affected products. Bestar inc. is offering a repair kit containing two 13 3/4" by 47 1/4" by 1/2" panels, screws, an additional tip-over restraint and a set of instructions that will be mailed to all customers. For more information, consumers may contact Bestar inc. by calling the toll-free number 1-888-823-7827. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AYO5HW BIGGAR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lehofer" Suit for FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Chad Lehofer, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. Biggar Enterprises, Inc. and Shawn Biggar, Case 3:16- cv-00044-REP (E.D.Va., January 21, 2016), was brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages owed to him and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by defendants at their Dominos Pizza stores. Defendants operate five Dominos Pizza franchise stores in and around Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Crdg Juraj Curwood, Esq. Philip Justus Dean, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 788-0808 Fax: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: pdean@.curwoodlaw.com ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and - Lee W. Barren, Esq. William D. Buchanan, Esq. 112 Front Street Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-9160 Fax: 618-462-9167 E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com will@leebarronlaw.com BNY MELLON: Violated ERISA's Provisions, "Hartline" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert E. Hartline, in his own capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the ERISA plan in which he is a participant or beneficiary, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Bank of New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National Association, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00228 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2016), seeks relief for harm suffered as a result of Defendants' transactions of converting into U.S. Dollars dividends or other cash distributions, including net proceeds from the sale of non-US securities, property, or rights, made by foreign companies to ERISA plans which are invested, directly or indirectly, in American Depositary Receipts. The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" under ERISA. It is also a traditional defined benefit pension plan. The Plan's assets are held under the custody of the Defendants. Some assets of the Plan are managed by Thornburg Investment Management Inc. and Harding Loevner, LP. BNY Mellon provides banking and investment products and services to individuals as well as small, midsize, and large businesses and institutions. The Bank is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was formerly known as Mellon Bank, National Association. BNY Mellon, National Association operates as a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Preminger, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. T. David Copley, Esq. Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 380-6690 Facsimile: (646) 380-6692 E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com bleland@kellerrohrback.com BOARD'S HONEY: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 15, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Board's Honey Farm Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10241 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ----- product --- ---------- Board's Honey Meadowblend 45 ml Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 150 g Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 250 g Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 330 g Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 375 g Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 500 g Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadowblend 1 kg Sold by None Farm Honey - Board's Liquid Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 2 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 3 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 5 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 7 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 10 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. Board's Honey Meadow Blend 15 kg Sold by None Farm Liquid Board's (Honey) Honey Farm from July 20, 2015 up to and including September 20, 2015. BOFI HOLDING: Defending 2 Class Suits in California --------------------------------------------------- BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the Company is vigorously defending against two class action complaints in California. On October 15, 2015, a complaint (the "Golden Complaint") was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer under the case name Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of the named plaintiff and a putative, but as yet uncertified, class. On November 3, 2015, a second complaint (the "Hazan Complaint") was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer under the case name Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, also in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, and also on behalf of the named plaintiff and a putative, but as yet uncertified, class (the Golden Complaint and the Hazan Complaint, collectively, the "Class Action Complaints"). The Class Action Complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon allegations made in a complaint in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter") filed against BofI Federal Bank, a wholly- owned subsidiary of the Company, by a former employee. The Company disputes the allegations advanced by the plaintiff in the Employment Matter, as well as the plaintiff's perception of the underlying factual circumstances, and is vigorously defending that lawsuit. The Class Action Complaints seek monetary damages and other relief on behalf of all class members. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations raised in the Class Action Complaints and are vigorously defending these lawsuits. BRAINLAB AG: Recalls Radiosurgery System - Software --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 15, 2015 Posting date: February 1, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56890 The contours of anatomical structures outlined in Brainlab SmartBrush are displayed shifted when loaded in Brain Metastases. Brainlab has identified a potential error when importing image sets and associated outlined objects into Brain Metastases version 1.0.0 or Adaptive Hybrid Surgery analysis version 1.0.0. Affected products: BRAINSCAN RADIOSURGERY SYSTEM - SOFTWARE Lot or serial number: 1.0.0. Model or catalog number: 21702-04 21703-01 21703-02 Manufacturer: Brainlab AG Kapellenstr 12 Feldkirchen 85622 GERMANY C&J ENERGY: Faces "Cantu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leonel Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J Spec-Rent Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00015 (S.D. Tex., January 14, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide fracturing, coiled tubing, wireline logging, pipe recovery, perforating, pressure pumping, and wellsite make-up and pressure testing services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CAFFI BROTHERS: "Parra" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruben Dario Parra and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ramon Arturo Caffi d/b/a Caffi Brothers Body Shop, Janet Caffi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20156-JLK (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2016), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages. The Defendant is a proprietorship doing business under an assumed name that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM CAMPUS CREST: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Campus Crest Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the parties to the merger class actions have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. On October 16, 2015, Campus Crest Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Campus Crest"), HSRE Quad Merger Parent, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), HSRE Quad Merger Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a wholly owned Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") and CCGSR, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Stockholders' Representative"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of Campus Crest by Parent (such agreement, as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Campus Crest will merge with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent is an affiliate of Harrison Street Real Estate Capital, LLC ("Harrison Street"). Eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the Merger in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Court") against Campus Crest, the members of its Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers, the Stockholders' Representative, Harrison Street, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub, including Grossman v. CCGSR, et al., Latuso v. Campus Crest et al., Silverwood v. Campus Crest, et al., Cekot v. Campus Crest, et al., Powis v. CCGSR, et al., Zhang v. CCGSR, et al., Bushansky v. Campus Crest, et al., and Wei Lin v. Campus Crest, et al., Case Nos. 24-C-15-005422, 24-C-15-005415, 24-C-15-005414, 24-C-15- 005476, 24-C-15-005501, 24-C-15-005502, 24-C-15-005542 and 24-C- 15-005642, filed on October 27, 2015, October 27, 2015, October 27, 2015, October 30, 2015, November 2, 2015, November 2, 2015, November 5, 2015, and November 10, 2015, respectively (collectively the "Actions"). The Actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption Wei Lin v. Campus Crest Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-15-005642. On January 19, 2016, the parties to the Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. Campus Crest and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties. While the defendants in the Actions continue vigorously to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of Campus Crest, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the Court entering an injunction or awarding damages in connection with the Actions, Campus Crest has agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. The settlement will not affect the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court following notice to Campus Crest's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Campus Crest challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, the consideration paid pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and any disclosures made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Campus Crest's stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Campus Crest or its successor. The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective under Maryland law. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated. A copy of the Supplement to Definitive Proxy Statement is available at http://is.gd/A6nyi9 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sutton" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Chantal Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00001-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collections agency that provides delinquent receivables resolution. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com CAVIAR INC: "Levin" Case Stayed Pending Arbitrator's Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the matter pending arbitrator's decision whether Plaintiff's PAGA is arbitrable in the case captioned, JEFFRY LEVIN, Plaintiff, v. CAVIAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-01285-EDL (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff, a restaurant delivery driver, sued Defendant Caviar, Inc., a restaurant delivery service in San Francisco for wage and hour violations. The Court previously granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff's individual claims, held that the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement was enforceable and found that the waiver of claims under the California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab.Code Sections 2698 et seq. (PAGA) was unenforceable. The Court then asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the arbitrability of the PAGA claim should be decided by the arbitrator in light of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015). In the instant case, the arbitration agreement specifies that Courier and Caviar agree that any disputes between them arising from Courier's agreement, services, or other relationships with Caviar shall be subject to final and binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Plaintiff argues that because the arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules, it delegates the arbitrability question to the arbitrator. Defendant counters that other provisions in the Courier Terms and Conditions are in conflict with the delegation language, negating any clear and unmistakable delegation of the issue of arbitrability. In her Order dated January 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/rtDMCefrom Leagle.com, Judge Laporte concluded that the issue on whether the assertion of arbitrability is "wholly groundless," is one for the arbitrator to decide. The Court directed the parties to inform the Court of the status of the arbitrator's decision on the threshold issue within one week of the decision or no later than May 20, 2016. Jeffrey Levin is represented by Matthew David Carlson, Esq. -- mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Adelaide Pagano, Esq. -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Caviar, Inc. is represented by Robert James Slaughter, Esq. -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- Ashok Ramani, Esq. -- aramani@kvn.com, Erin E. Meyer, Esq. -- emeyer@kvn.com -- Simona Alessandra Agnolucci, Esq. -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP CHANNEL PARTNERS: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Brown" Suit Asserts ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Brown and any other past or present employees who are similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Channel Partners, doing business as BDSMKTG, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00143-GEKP (E.D. Penn., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees, interest, and costs, and other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Channel Partners is doing business as BDSMKTG, based in Streetboro, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Abramson, Esq. ABRAMSON EMPLOYEMENT LAW, LLC 790 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike, Suite 205 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (267) 470 4742 CHICAGO: Doesn't Properly Pay Water Chemists, "Atkins" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joanna Atkins and Eddie Cooper, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The City of Chicago, The Chicago Department of Water Management and The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Case No. 2015- L-013063 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Water Chemists II all compensation due them pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The City of Chicago is an incorporated municipality. The Chicago Department of Water Management is an infrastructure department that operates under the direction of a Commissioner. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 is a labor union. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 E-mail: info@touhylaw.com - and - Peter Lubin, Esq. Vincent DiTommaso, Esq DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C. The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium 17W220 22d Street, Suite 200 Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0000 E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com vdt@ditommasolaw.com CHINA FUN: Violated FLSA & SCPWA, "Carbone" Suit Seeks Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Logan Carbone, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. China Fun, L.L.C., d/b/a Zen Asian Fusion, Chen Zhou a/k/a Cindy Alfredson, Rong A. Zhou, and Mei Zheng individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00108-DCN (S.D. S. Car., Charleston Division, January 12, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. China Fun is a for-profit limited liability corporation, organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina, and is registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 849 1692 Facsimile: (800) 385 8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL: Parents of Sex Abuse Victims File Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a North Las Vegas elementary schoolteacher sexually molested students for years after the school district merely transferred him, rather than fire him, after his first arrest, parents of victims say in Las Vegas federal class action. Jeremiah Mazo is serving 15 to 60 years in state prison after pleading guilty in December to three counts of attempted lewdness with a child. He was charged with 32 counts. Two sets of John and Jane Doe parents sued Mazo and Clark County School District on Feb. 5, seeking class certification for 30 or more students and punitive damages for sexual assault, negligence and seven other claims. Mazo, 54, was a longtime music teacher at Hayden Elementary School in North Las Vegas, where he molested Joann Does I and II, who are 9 and 10 years old. Mazo was arrested in April 2015 after one of the girls, then 8, told her parents, and police, that Mazo had molested her repeatedly. It was Mazo's second such arrest. North Las Vegas Police arrested him in 2008, and he was charged with sexually molesting students while teaching at Simmons Elementary, but those charges were dismissed. The school district then transferred him to Hayden Elementary, without any "policies, procedures or parameters" to protect students from him, the parents say. Mazo continued to molest children at Hayden Elementary for six years, the parents say in the complaint. "From August 2012 through April 2015, Mazo would ask Joann Doe I to sit with him behind his desk, and after the other students had been dismissed from his music class, he would touch her buttock, and he would rub her private parts, both under her trousers as well as over her clothing," according to the complaint. Joann Doe I "objected to going to school, threw temper tantrums in the mornings to avoid going to school, and currently she says she does not want to have any children because she fears someone will do the same thing to her children that Mazo did to her," her parents say. He did the same thing to Joann Doe II, asking her to stay after class and sit on his lap, while he touched her buttocks and rubbed her private parts, according to the complaint. During these repeated molestations, Joann II "did not want to go to school, refused to do her household chores, fought with her parents and her brother, and could not fall asleep at night," her parents say. When her mother patted her daughter on the behind, Joann became very angry, and she always was upset on Wednesdays, when Mazo taught her music class. Joann II is still afraid, because even though Mazo is behind bars, he told her she would be transferred to another school if she told anyone what he was doing, and she was afraid to go to school because she thought other students would blame her for Mazo's arrest, her parents say. At a Feb. 11 news conference, the families' attorney Robert Eglet said the school district had ample notice that Mazo was a sexual predator and did nothing to independently investigate the matter or inform students how to report improper conduct. The Does seek class certification and punitive damages for sexual assault, assault and battery claims against Mazo, and Title IX, negligence, failure to warn, emotional distress and vicarious liability claims against the school district. Clark County School District does not comment on pending lawsuits. The tragedy in North Las Vegas is just the latest in a string of dozens or hundreds of such cases, in which public school districts quietly pass along a suspected molester, for fear of embarrassing the school district, attorneys familiar with such cases say. The most-publicized case was that of John Boone, who molested at least 58 Hopi students in Arizona after another school district had quietly passed him along. The United States eventually paid a $13 million to the families, because Boone worked at Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools. One of his victims shot himself to death in front of his family. An independent investigation determined that Boone had molested at least 94 young Hopi boys: 5 percent of the tribe's age cohort. Boone is serving life in prison. At Mazo's sentencing hearing on Dec. 9 last year, he sang a Christian hymn and told the judge that Jesus had already forgiven him. Then he was led away in handcuffs. CLEVELAND: CPP Faces Tremont Suit Over Unlawful Energy Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- Tremont Scoops LLC and Tymex Plastics, Inc., et al. v. City of Cleveland and Cleveland Public Power, et al., Case No. 15856437 (Ohio Com. Pleas., December 30, 2015) arises from CPP's unlawful scheme to exact unlawful charges from its non-residential customers, specifically by failing to calculate the Energy Adjustment Charge ("EAC") reflected on non-residential customers' monthly bills. City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation that owns and operates CPP. Cleveland Public Power is an electric utility operating as an Electric Distribution Utility ("EDU") that provides electric distribution service to residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial customers located within Cleveland's geographic boundaries and a few immediately adjacent areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Telephone: (216) 229-6088 Facsimile: (216) 229-6092 E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com - and - Peter Turner, Esq. Carolyn Blake, Esq. Debra J. Horn, Esq. MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 831-0042 Facsimile: (216) 831-0542 E-mail: pturner@meyersroman.com cblake@meyersroman.com dhorn@meyersroman.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Dismissed Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a New Jersey court has issued an order: (i) granting the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice, and (ii) allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to "demonstrate the GAAP violation." On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv- 05628-MAS-LHG). "The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding our financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief." "Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26, 2015, and the plaintiff's filed their opposition brief on July 1, 2015. The Company's reply was filed on August 24, 2015 and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on October 13, 2015. "On December 17, 2015, the court issued an order (i) granting our motion to dismiss in its entirety without prejudice, and (ii) allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to "demonstrate the GAAP violation." "The Company continues to believe that the suit is without merit and we intend to defend ourselves and our officers vigorously," the Company said. "At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses that it may experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As of December 31, 2015 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter." COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Sues Credit Card Receipt Misprint ---------------------------------------------------------- Emiguela Paci, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00094, (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 5, 2016), seeks punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Paci made a purchase at Defendant's store and discovered that their point-of-sale machine's electronically printed receipt reflected the first six digits of her American Express payment card's account number in addition to the last four digits of that account number. This is in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1), says the complaint. Costco is a publically traded global retailer with outlets nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Tel: (847) 701-5290 Email: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters --------------------------------------------------------- Alec Caldwell v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00010-DGC (N.D. Miss., December 9, 2015) is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of being implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard. The Defendants develop, manufacture, sell, and distribute medical devices and surgical products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheila M. Bossier, Esq. FREESE & GOSS, PLLC 1520 N. State Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 961-4050 Facsimile: (601) 352-5452 E-mail: sbossier@freeseandgoss.com - and - Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. David C. DeGreeff, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: ddegreeff@wcllp.com tcartmell@wcllp.com CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Suzara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Suzara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crown Castle USA, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00551 (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Crown Castle USA, Inc. owns and maintains wireless infrastructure throughout the United States including small cell, traditional cell sites, rooftop sites, and distributed antenna systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 5896370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com erapp@edelson.com - and - Nicholas C. Syregelas, Esq. Kyle R. Kasmarick THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS C. SYREGELAS 19 North Green Street Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-0900 Facsimile: (312) 243-0901 E-mail: nsyregelas@syregelaslaw.com kkasmarick@syregelaslaw.com CVB FINANCIAL: CA Affirms in Part Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in part in the case captioned, BARRY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff, and JACKSONVILLE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CVB FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CHRISTOPHER D. MYERS; EDWARD J. BIEBRICH, JR., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-56838 (9th Cir.). In 2010, two securities fraud actions were filed against CVB in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court consolidated the suits and appointed Jacksonville as lead plaintiff. Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (Jacksonville) alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. The district court granted CVB's motion to dismiss, holding that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) failed to plausibly allege that any of the statements by CVB challenged in the pleading were either knowingly or recklessly false or caused a loss to shareholders. Jacksonville declined to further amend its complaint and requested that the district court enter judgment. The court dismissed the SAC for failure to state a claim de novo. On appeal, Jacksonville contends that the district court erred in dismissing the claims. In the Opinion dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/mld7gffrom Leagle.com, Judge Hurwitz vacated the dismissal of the SAC with respect to the "no serious doubts" representations made in the 10-K on March 4, 2010 and the 10-Q on May 10, 2010. He found that the SAC stated a claim as to two alleged misrepresentations and hold that the announcement of an SEC investigation related to an alleged misrepresentation, coupled with a subsequent revelation of the inaccuracy of that misrepresentation, can serve as a corrective disclosure for the purpose of loss causation. The Court remanded the matter for further proceedings. Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund is represented by Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -- Niki L. Mendoza, Esq. -- nikim@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Defendants are represented by George T. Conway, III, Esq. -- GTConway@wlrk.com -- David M. Murphy, Esq. -- DMMurphy@wlrk.com -- Warren R. Stern, Esq. -- WRStern@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ DANIEL B NY: "Jo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Hyewon "Julia" Jo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Daniel B. NY, INC., a New York State Domestic Corporation, Core Jewelry, Inc., a New York State Domestic Corporation, Kyung Hak Baik & Daniel Baik, Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-00056-JMF (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., New York Labor Law, recovery of compensation for missed meal periods and earned sick leave pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Daniel B. NY, Inc. and Core Jewelry, Inc. are corporations organized under the laws of the State of New York with a common place of business located at 62 West 47th Street, Suite #E406, New York, New York 10036, and Kyung Hak Baik serving as Chief Executive Officer and owner. Jo was a housekeeper for the Defendants and claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime premium. She said she enjoyed neither meal breaks not sick leave credits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Curran, Esq. 98-120 Queens Boulevard, Suite #1-C Rego Park, NY 11374-4414 Tel: (715) 830-0246, ext. 127 Fax: (718) 830-9088 Email: mrc4law@yahoo.com DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Anesthesia Delivery System Main Units ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Posting date: January 25, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56776 Reason Affected products The drive gas check valve could become stuck in a fixed open position which could cause pressure to build in the mechanical ventilation cycle. If this issue is left unresolved, it could result in excessive or prolonged pressure in the patient breathing circuit during ventilation potentially resulting in barotrauma. Affected products A. S/5 AESPIRE 7900 SMARTVENT ANESTHESIA SYSTEM - Main Unit Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer Model or catalog number: 1009-9012-000 Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda 3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550, Madison 53707-7550 Wisconsin UNITED STATES B. AVANCE CS2 - Main Unit Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer Model or catalog number: 1009-9050-000 Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda 3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550, Madison 53707-7550 Wisconsin UNITED STATES C. AISYS CS2 ANESTHESIA MACHINE MAIN UNIT Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer Model or catalog number: 1011-9050-000 Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda 3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550, Madison 53707-7550 Wisconsin UNITED STATES DE CAPITAL MORTGAGE: Violated FLSA & NYLA, "Negrin" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Negrin, Ann Mondrone, and Seth Berman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. De Capital Mortgage, LLC, Preferred Empire Mortgage, Co., and Dottie Herman, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00158 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover award compensatory damages, including all minimum wage and overtime compensation owed, in an amount according to proof; award interest on all minimum wage and/or overtime compensation due accruing from the date such amounts were due; award all costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this action; and relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the FLSA and/or New York Labor Articles. DE Capital Mortgage operates as a subsidiary of Federal Savings Bank and Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate Inc. The Company is headquartered at Rolling Meadows, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik H. Langeland ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354 6270 Facsimile: (212) 898 9086 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com DELTA GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Davila" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Davila, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated v. Delta Group Security, LLC, Delta Group Security Services, INC., Vladyslav Shestopalov, and Anthony Cardozo, Case No. 1:16-cv-00321 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours over 40 each workweek. The Defendant operates a security services business known as "Delta Group", located at 244 Fifth A venue, New York, New York 10001. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. 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@jcplaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: N.Y. Court Dismisses Investors' Suit --------------------------------------------------- UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1 disclosed in its Form 10-D Asset-Backed Issuer Distribution Report for the monthly distribution period from December 12, 2015 to January 12, 2016, that a New York court has granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in a class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY Derivative Action without prejudice. Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564 RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on behalf of the named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a putative class action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing interests in those RMBS trusts. On January 19, 2016, the court overseeing the SDNY Action granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in defendant' motion to dismiss. The court further ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint consistent with its ruling as to the remaining 64 trusts governed by indentures. The defendants will have an opportunity to file new defensive motions with respect to the amended complaint after it is filed. DBTCA will continue to vigorously defend the SDNY Action. DIRT DOCTORS: "Del Re" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Fernando Del Re, and all others similarly-situated v. Dirt Doctors, LLC, aka Thiry Brothers Home Improvements, Derek Thiry and Daryl Thiry, Case No. 3:16-cv-00309 (D.N.J., January 17, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Defendants own and operate a home improvement business throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 North Harrison Street Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Blum" Suit in Mass. Over Online Gambling --------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Blum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fanduel, Inc., and Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 10063-RWZ (D. Mass., January 14, 2016) seeks redress for the deceptive and collusive practices committed by the Defendants in connection with their online fantasy gambling enterprise, and to obtain full remuneration for every dollar lost by players. The Defendants operate a fantasy sports website that permits individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - James R. Dugan II, Esq. David B. Franco, Esq. Lanson Bordelon, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LO 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com ELI LILLY: Sued in Ind. Over Cymbalta's Withdrawal Symptoms ----------------------------------------------------------- Maria Deville v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-00011- WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide proper warnings that fully and accurately inform users and health care professionals about the frequency, severity, and duration of Cymbalta's withdrawal symptoms. Eli Lilly and Company is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with annual revenues exceeding $20 billion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Stein, Esq. KNOX RICKSEN LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1101 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 285-2500 Facsimile: (510) 285-2505 E-mail: SBS@KNOXRICKSEN.COM - and - Robert J. Schuckit, Esq. SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC 4545 Northwestern Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 Telephone: (317) 2363-2400 Facsimile: (317) 363-2257 E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado Plaintiff Seeks to Amend Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2016, that the plaintiff in a shareholder class action filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015, and is seeking leave to further amend the complaint. "On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of our common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against us and our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO," the Company said. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015 and is currently seeking leave to further amend the complaint. "The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities between February 25, 2014 and November 2, 2015. The amended complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegations that certain disclosures made by us concerning the number of customers paying over $500 per year for Endurance products and services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and our customer churn rate were false and/or misleading. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation." ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits over Constant Contact Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2016, that the Company is facing class action lawsuits related to the acquisition of Constant Contact. "On October 30, 2015, we entered into a definitive agreement, or the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we agreed to acquire all of Constant Contact's outstanding shares of common stock for $32.00 per share in cash, valuing Constant Contact at approximately $1.1 billion," the Company said. On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry Complaint, the Complaints) filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Merger Sub as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in connection with the Acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the Acquisition or to rescind the Acquisition should it be consummated, as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. EOS PRODUCTS: Violated CLRA & UBPA, "Cronin" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Cronin, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EOS Products, LLC, and DOES 1-10; the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00235-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., January 12, 2016), seeks injunction, damages, restitution, equitable relief and other relief deemed appropriate, and the amount and nature of such relief for alleged harm of EOS lip-balm, pursuant to Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Business Practices Act. EOS is a New York Limited Liability Company. It develops, markets, advertises, brands, promotes, distributes, and sells -- through retail and online -- one of the highest-grossing lip-balm products on the market called EOS Visibly Soft Lip Balm. The lip-balms come in a variety of colors and "flavors", with over-the-top and misleading names like Barbados Heat-Wildberry, Medicated Tangerine, and Honeysuckle Honeydew. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone (213) 625 3900 Facsimile (213) 232 3255 E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin L. Dougherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and Tim M. Mayleben, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10089-AJT- RSW (E.D. Mich., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages and interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just and proper as a result of the Defendants' alleged false portrayal of what occurred at an early August 2015 meeting between Esperion and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Security and Exchange Commission Rule. A month after the meeting, as the market understood the true facts concerning what occurred at the meeting, the price of Esperion's stock collapsed. By the beginning of August 2015, Esperion completed ETC-1002's Phase 2b clinical trials and was meeting with the FDA to discuss moving forward with the Phase 3 segment of the approval process. Up to that point, Esperion never mentioned to investors that it would need to conduct a lengthy and expensive cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to ETC-1002 being approved. Esperion is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and commercializing oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-cholesterol") lowering therapies for patients with hypercholesterolemia. Esperion's lead product candidate is ETC- 1002, a once-daily small molecule designed to lower LDL cholesterol levels. The Company is headquartered at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841 2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Ryan A. Llorens, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 E-mail ryanl@rgrdlaw.com pgeller@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com ETS PC: "Pollard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Pollard, et al., and all others similarly-situated v. ETS PC, Inc. fka Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc., ECS PC, Inc. fka Eberl's Claim Service, Inc., EAC PC, LLC fka Eberl's Acquisition Co., LLC, ETS Holding Company, Inc., Eberl Claims Service, LLC fka Forsyth Colorado, LLC, and Kirk J. Eberl, Case No. 1:16-cv-00097 (D. Colo., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an independent ajduster firm. Defendants' principal place of business is at 7276 West Mansfield Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80235. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Starzyk, Esq. April L. Walter, Esq. Amber L. Karns, Esq. Megan M. Mitchell, Esq. STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC 10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Tel: (281) 364-7261 Fax: (281) 364-7533 E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com awalter@starzyklaw.com akarns@starzyklaw.com mmitchell@starzyklaw.com EXETER FINANCE: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Rivera" Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Defendant's motion to stay proceedings in the case captioned, EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXETER FINANCE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-01057-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.). Plaintiff filed the instant class action lawsuit alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly situated received debt collection telephone calls on their cell phones when, in fact, those calls were intended not for them but for the prior subscriber of their cell telephone number. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's ability to prevail depends on the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" (or ATDS) under the TCPA, and on whether the statute supports liability for calls to reassigned telephone numbers. Defendant further contends that both these issues were addressed by the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) latest Declaratory Ruling and Order (Ruling), and that the Ruling has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In the motion, Defendant argued that because the outcome of that appeal will affect the efficacy of Plaintiff's lawsuit here, the Court should enter a stay pending the conclusion of the appeal (final briefing will be completed within weeks). Plaintiff does not dispute any of the above per se, but disagrees with the Defendant on the effect the appeal will have on this lawsuit, claiming that regardless of what the FCC does, the lawsuit will still have a viable theory of recovery. In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/wH2VNifrom Leagle.com, Judge Hegarty concluded that staying the case could substantially delay the ultimate resolution of the case, with adverse consequences such as a decrease in evidentiary quality and party/witness availability. The Court cannot justify the imposition of an indefinite stay of discovery in the matter in light of the limited scope of discovery that the Court has already imposed at Defendant's request. Edgar Rivera is represented by Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. -- rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com -- David Neal McDevitt, Esq. -- dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com -- THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC Exeter Finance Corp. is represented by John Robert Chiles, Esq. -- jchiles@burr.com -- Zachary David Miller, Esq. -- zmiller@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP & Austin E. Smith, Esq. -- Austin.smith@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. EXPRESS TECHNOLOGIES: "Hower" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Hower, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00009-HEH (E.D. Va., January 5, 2016), seeks monetary damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an amount equal to all unpaid overtime owed, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, permanent enjoinment and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an electrician, driving a company-owned van to jobsites, and servicing Express Technologies' clients including pulling fiber optic cable, installing communications cable, running power cables, installing electrical receptacles, installing light switches, installing light fixtures and installing conduit. However, the Defendant did not pay Hower for hours spent driving between the shop and the jobsite. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but did not receive pay for all hours worked. Express Technologies is a Virginia corporation with its principal office in Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Justus Dean, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Fax: (804) 767-6777 Email: pdean@curwoodlaw.com ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated securities action related to its IPO. "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified damages," the Company said. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend them. The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our directors and certain of our officers. "On July 24, 2015, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the derivative actions. On December 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated securities action. In addition, the events surrounding our IPO became the subject of various state and federal government inquiries." FIFTH STREET: Shareholders File Class Action in Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a putative securities class-action lawsuit filed by purchasers of the Company's shares. The suit is related to other, previously disclosed shareholder class actions brought by shareholders of Fifth Street Finance Corp. ("FSC"), for which FSM serves as investment adviser. The lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on January 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased common stock in or pursuant to the Company's October 30, 2014 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claims for relief. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations. In addition, a second putative shareholder derivative action captioned Scott Avera v. Leonard M. Tannenbaum, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01889, was filed in the District of Connecticut on December 31, 2015. The Avera complaint is similar to the Chau complaint that was previously disclosed in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2015. FITBIT INC: "McLellan" Sues Over Defective Heart Rate Meters -------------------------------------------------------------- Kate McLellan, Teresa Black and David Urban, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fitbit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00036, (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division, January 5, 2016), seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, full restitution, compensatory, exemplary, punitive and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and Violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et seq. Fitbit, Inc. is a corporation that designs, manufactures, promotes, and sells the PurePulse Trackers, a device that monitors heart rate. It is organized and incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and its principal place of business is in San Francisco, California. Plaintiffs have bought the said product and claim that the PurePulse Trackers do not reflect accurate heart rate readings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Tel: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9592 Email: ecabraser@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com - and - Robert Klonoff, Esq. ROBERT H. KLONOFF, LLC 2425 SW 76th Ave. Portland, OR 97225 Tel: (503) 291-1570 Email: klonoff@usa.net FITNESS INT'L: "Briones" Suit Seeks Damages Under UCL ----------------------------------------------------- Beau Briones, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fitness International, LLC; Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC; LAF Canada Company d/b/a L.A. Fitness and Pro Results, and does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00044 (C.D. Cal., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover all statutory enhanced damages, all reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post- judgment interest, and all other relief, general or special, legal and equitable, as deemed by the Court, as a result of Defendants' practice of cheating consumers out of thousands of dollars who purchased the Defendants' products, pursuant to Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business & Professions Code, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Health Studio Services Contract Act, Tort of Conversion of Personal Property, and Financial Elder Abuse Act. Fitness International is a California limited liability company, with headquarters and principle place of business in California. Fitness & Sports Clubs is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principle place of business in California. The Defendants are engaged in the business owning and operating fitness and training facilities open to the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Bicycles With Acros-Brand Upper Headsets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 17, 2015 Posting date: December 17, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56280 This recall involves all 2014-2015 Focus Izalco Max bicycles with Acros-brand upper headsets. The headsets are black with the word "Acros" printed in white on the upper headset. The headset could cause the carbon-fiber fork steer tube to crack, posing a fall hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Focus Bicycles USA Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bicycles. The firm has received 11 reports of incidents, including one reported injury in France. No incidents were reported in the United States. Approximately 31 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 470 units were sold in the United States The recalled bicycles were sold from January 2014 to August 2015 at independent bicycle retailers and online. Manufactured in Taiwan and Germany. Distributor: Focus Bicycles USA, Inc. Carlsbad Alabama UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and contact Focus Bicycles to schedule a repair. For more information, consumers may contact Focus Bicycles USA Inc. toll free at 1-877-753-4480 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and click on "Izalco Max Recall" for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. FRANK A REICHL: Faces Westmore Cty. Suit Over Sherman Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, and all others similarly situated v. Frank A. Reichl, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals US LLC, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00170 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants entered into an unlawful conspiracy to eliminate competition in the liquid aluminum sulfate market by agreeing not to compete for contracts for LAS, agreeing to allocate customers for LAS and colluding to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices of LAS by submitting artificially inflated bids to Plaintiff and class members during the class period. The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of liquid aluminum sulfate used primarily by municipalities in potable water and wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes. Liquid aluminum sulfate is also used for algae control in lakes and ponds, to fix dyes to fabrics and textiles, and by poultry houses as a litter amendment for ammonia control. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC One South Broad St., Suite 2300 Philadephia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: GAsciolla@labaton.com - and - Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com G3 GENUINE: Recalls Carbon Speed Tech Probes -------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 17, 2015 Posting date: December 17, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness, Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56354 This recall involves G3 Carbon Speed Tech & Carbon Speed Tech SL Probes manufactured between 2011 and 2014. Model Model Number Handle Color ----- ------------ ------------ G3 300 Carbon Speed Tech Probe 1631 Red G3 240 Carbon Speed Tech SL Probe 1911 Black G3 190 Carbon Speed Tech SL Probe 1635 Black The bond between the ferrule and the bottom probe segment where the tensioning cable originates can fail. Once the probe is extended, if significant force is used in tensioning the internal cable by pulling on the red or black T-handle, the internal ferrule can loosen inside or disconnect from the lower segment, causing the probe to weaken and possibly fail. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc. has received 29 reports of the probes breaking. Approximately 1292 units were sold in Canada. The recalled product was sold from May 2011 to April 2014 Manufactured in China Distributor: G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc. Burnaby British Columbia CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled probes and contact G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc. for a replacement. For more information, consumers can contact G3 customer service toll free at 1-866- 924-9048, Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm PST, by email or visit the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Ignition Switch Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Delaware's Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by General Motors shareholders over faulty ignition switches. After hearing arguments, the court affirmed a judge's ruling from last summer. The judge said the plaintiffs failed to satisfy a requirement that a shareholder suing on behalf of a company and seeking to hold top officials accountable must first demand that the board take action itself, or demonstrate why such a demand would be futile. The faulty switches have been blamed for scores of deaths and injuries. GM knew about them for more than a decade but didn't recall them until early 2014. The company said last year that the scandal, which prompted hundreds of lawsuits and a federal criminal probe, has cost it more than $5 billion. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Faciane" Suit Over Zofran(R) -------------------------------------------------------- Ashae Faciane, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Z.A.P., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10055-FDS (D. Mass., January 14, 2016) is an action for damages as a result of her prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron. Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients. GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5 Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Gurfein, Esq. GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP 11 Park Place, Suite #1100 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 406-1600 Facsimile: (212) 406-4779 GREAT-WEST: Faces "Krikorian" Suit Over Revenue Sharing Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wahan Krikorian, On Behalf of the TPS Parking Management, LLC 401(k) Plan and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00094 (D. Colo., December 14, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' revenue sharing agreements and similar arrangements with various mutual funds, affiliates of mutual funds, mutual fund advisors, sub-advisors, investment funds, including collective trusts, and other investment advisors, instruments or vehicles, pursuant to which Empower Retirement receives revenue sharing payments for its own benefit from these mutual funds. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Greenwood Village, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. 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: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com - and - Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com - and - Nathan Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com GRS MANAGEMENT: "Morales" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Damages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Margarita Morales, and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRS Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Maria Barreto, individually, and Jorge Barreto, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20162-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, January 12, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for Defendants' alleged violations of overtime pay under the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act. GRS Management is a Florida Corporation which regularly conducted business by managing condominiums within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Company obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, uses telephonic transmissions going over state lines to do its business, transmits funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly engages in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees. The annual gross revenue of GRS Management is estimated at more than $500,000.00 per annum. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld. Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 923 5899 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone (305) 773 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com HAEMONETICS CORPORATION: Recalls Plasma Collection Systems ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 17, 2015 Posting date: January 14, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56630 Haemonetics has become aware of customers using harsh chemicals to clean the pump rotor assembly. Improper cleaning may damage the pump rollers leading to device malfunction. Affected products A. Plasma Collection System 2 Lot or serial number: All serial numbers. Model or catalog number: 06002-110-EXP-EW 06002-CP-110 06002-CP-NA 06002-CPL-110 Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation 400 Wood Road Braintree 02184 Massachusetts UNITED STATES B. MCS+LN9000 Centrifugal Blood Cell Separator Lot or serial number: All serial numbers. Model or catalog number: 09000-110-E 09000-110-EWC 9000-110-ED Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation 400 Wood Road Braintree 02184 Massachusetts UNITED STATES C. MCS+LN8150 (SW Rev.F) Lot or serial number: All serial numbers. Model or catalog number: MCS+LN8150 Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation 400 Wood Road Braintree 02184 Massachusetts UNITED STATES D. ACP215 System Lot or serial number: All serial numbers. Model or catalog number: 02215-110-E Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation 400 Wood Road Braintree 02184 Massachusetts UNITED STATES HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari ----------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the defendants in the case, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a Court of Appeals ruling that reversed an order dismissing the case. On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv- 01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the District Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on August 26, 2015. The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on November 24, 2015. The defendants also filed a motion to stay discovery pending the disposition of their petition for a writ of certiorari on November 24, 2015, which was denied by the District Court on December 15, 2015. HEALTH CARRIERS: Faces "Sanabria" Suit for FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Sanabria, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Health Carriers Alliance LLC, National Health Hub LLC, US Affordable Health Solutions LLC, Vertigen L.L.C., Direct Health Solutions INC, Samuel A. Llanes, and Richard H. Leff, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60075-FAM (S.D. Fla., Fort Lauderdale Division, January 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, double damages/liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Health Carriers Alliance is a Florida Limited Liability Company, having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida, and was and is engaged in interstate commerce. National Health Hub is a Florida Limited Liability Company, having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida, and was and is engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Gibson, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com bgibson@saenzanderson.com HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces "Araiza" Suit Over Labor Law Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Araiza, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise 1s COMPANY, a Delaware corporation and Does l-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG15798244 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Alameda, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover premium wages, minimum wages, and separation pay, pursuant to the Labor and Business and Professions Codes. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is a Delaware corporation. The Company is an enterprise-focused organization with four divisions: Enterprise Group (servers, storage, networking, consulting and support), Enterprise Services, Software, and Financial Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Alice Kim, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 818 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com alice@setarehlaw.com HHGREGG INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Class Action Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------------- hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's interlocutory appeal in a class action lawsuit has been accepted. The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned, Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus. On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on damages has yet been made. The Company's interlocutory appeal was accepted on October 23, 2015. If the Company does not ultimately prevail in this case, the potential liability is approximately $2.4 million based on those individuals included in the class, excluding interest and other fees which cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes the loss is not probable, and thus, as of December 31, 2015, a liability has not been recorded for this matter. HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION: "Caido" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Caido, an individual, Gerard Agbangnin, an individual, Julius Mofor, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hollywood Production Center, LLC, and does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC6 05581 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, Fla., December 29, 2015), seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, and interest, nominal, actual and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief, penalties, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act. Hollywood Production Center, California Limited Liability Company, provides office space to entertainment industry for immediate occupancy of production, post-production, executive offices, creative space and filming locations. The company offers executive offices and suites, furnished office space, short term office space, production office space, rental office space, on-site gym with lockers and toiletries, conference rooms with tele- conferencing, and phones and internet. Its clientele include 20th Century Fox, Bravo, Comedy Central, Touchstone, and MTV. Hollywood Production Center, LLC was founded in 2001 and is based in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tali Shaddow, Esq. Mark Steven Avila, Esq. AVILA & SHADDOW 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 227 8610 Facsimile: (818) 337 7265 HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 2792 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015600TC ID number: 2015600 Manufacturer recall number: MK40 On certain motorcycles, engine vibration may cause the bank angle sensor's wiring to rub on the wiring harness joint connector. Continuous vibration between the bank angle sensor wiring and the wire harness joint connector could cause an open circuit, which could result in an engine stall while riding. An engine stall could lead to a loss of stability of the motorcycle, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will relocate the joint connector and replace the bank angle sensor. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA VT750C 2015, 2010, 2010, 2010 HONDA VT750CA 2013 HONDA VT750C2F 2010 HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 1328 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015601TC ID number: 2015601 On certain motorcycles, the starter relay switch may have had sealant incorrectly applied during assembly. This could result in increased resistance across the main fuse, potentially interrupting battery voltage to the electrical system. An interruption of battery voltage to the electrical system could cause the engine to either not start or stall while driving. Increased resistance at the main fuse could also cause a fire, potentially resulting in injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the starter relay switch, and replace if necessary. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2015- 300. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA CBR500RA 2014, 2015, 2015 HONDA CBR500R 2014 HONDA CB500FA 2014 HONDA CB500XA 2014 HONDA: Recalls CR-V 2003 Models Due to Defective Airbag ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 17990 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015602TC ID number: 2015602 Manufacturer recall number: HM62 On certain vehicles, the passenger frontal airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflator. Note: Note: This is an expansion of recall 2015-261. Honda Canada has created a special Airbag Inflator Hotline for immediate assistance. For more information, please contact: For Honda Owners: 1-877-445-7754 For Acura Owners: 1-877-445-9844 Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA CR-V 2003 HONEYMOON CORP: "Hutchinson" Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn E. Hutchinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Honeymoon Corporation and Stephen Rector, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00018-JRA (N.D. Ohio, January 5, 2016), seeks actual damages for unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid overtime plus twice the amount of unpaid minimum wages due, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and further and additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201-219 and Ohio Minimum Wage Fair Standards Act, Chapter 4111 and Section 34a, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Honeymoon is restaurant in Akron, Ohio where Hutchinson was employed as a waitress and, at times, as an hourly crew leader. She was paid a straight hourly rate without overtime premium for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week. Defendants allegedly failed to make, keep and preserve records of all of the hours worked by its employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Thiel, Esq. 75 Public Square Ste. 650 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Tel: 216.452.9144 Fax: 888.838.4529 Email: daniel@danielthiel.com IMS TRADING: Court Allows Plaintiff to File 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff Marie Dopico's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned, MARIE DOPICO, for Plaintiff and the class of members defined herein Plaintiff, v. IMS TRADING CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-1874 (PGS)(DEA) (D.N.J.). Plaintiff brings the instant putative class action against Defendant IMS Trading Corporation a/k/a IMS Pet Industries (IMS) alleging that dog treats marketed and sold to pet owners by IMS caused illness and/or death to dogs that consumed the product. The matter was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey in March 2014. Shortly after removal, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint contains the following Counts: Count I, breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); Count II, breach of implied warranty under the UCC; Count III, violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act; Count IV, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; Count V, unjust enrichment; Count VI, failure to warn (products liability), and Count VII, defective design or manufacture (products liability). IMS moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in April 2015, Judge Sheridan dismissed Counts II, III and V with prejudice as being subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA). Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add two additional Plaintiffs, one a resident of New Jersey and the other a resident of Arizona. The proposed SAC also adds certain claims applicable to the Arizona-resident Plaintiff only. These are as follows: (1) breach of implied warranty under the UCC (Count II); (2) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) (Count III); (3) unjust enrichment (Count V); and (4) violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count VIII). Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Judge Sheridan previously dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims for breach of implied warranty, violation of the NJCFA, and unjust enrichment. In his Memorandum Order dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qCFgOjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Arpert concluded that Defendant failed not met its burden to show prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility pursuant to Rule 15(a). The Court directed Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of the Order. Marie Dopico is represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. - bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Randee M. Matloff, Esq. -- rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP Dopico is also represented by: Michael J. Epstein, Esq. THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A. 340 W Passaic St. Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 Tel: (201)845-5962 Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Marone, Esq. Michael David Celentano, Esq. Richard J. Williams, Jr., Esq. MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 1300 Mt Kemble Ave. Morristown, NJ 07960 Tel: (973)993-8100 INVENSENSE INC: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------- InvenSense, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss. In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11, 2015). On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the "Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion was held on October 7, 2015. The parties are awaiting the court's decision. JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Hall" Suit in La. Over Xarelto Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Pearson Hall and Paul L. Hall v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00290 (E.D. La., January 12, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide adequate warning regarding the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability of Xarelto and its effects on the degree of anticoagulation in a patient. Janssen Research & Development, LLC is involved in the research, development, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph D. Lane, Esq. J. Farrest Taylor, Esq. Angela J. Mason, Esq. 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Telephone: (334) 673-1555 Facsimile: (334) 699-7229 E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com JPS COMPLETION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00035-FB (W.D. Tex., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield services company in Mathis, San Patricio County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com KB HOME: Reached Tentative Mediated Settlement in 2 Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ KB Home said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2015, that the Company has reached a tentative mediated settlement with the plaintiff representatives in two wage and hour cases. In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleged that the Company misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015. In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleged violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. "Although the case involved a putative class of individuals who were our sales representatives from September 2009 forward, the Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action," the Company said. "In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs for both matters. On November 18, 2015, the Company reached a tentative mediated settlement with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains subject to judicial approval. "We established an accrual for these matters in 2015, and increased the accrual by an immaterial amount in the fourth quarter to reflect the tentative settlement," the Company said. KELLOGG CO: "Hawkins" File Suit for Breach of Implied Warranty -------------------------------------------------------------- Shavonda Hawkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Kellogg Company, Case 3:16-cv-00147-JAH-JMA (S.D.Cal., January 21, 2016), is a complaint for injunctive relief, abatement of nuisance, violations of the unfair competition law, and breach of implied warranty in relation to the Defendant's sale of "Trans Fat Cookies" (TF Cookies), which allegedly contain or contained partially hydrogenated oil. Kellogg manufactures, distributes, and sells a variety of cookie products under the brand name Mother's Cookies (the "Trans Fat Cookies" or "TF Cookies"), which contain or contained partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO"). PHO is a food additive banned in many parts of the world due to its artificial transfat content. Artificial transfat is a toxin and carcinogen for which there are many safe and commercially viable substitutes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. David Elliot, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 798-2006 Fax: (313) 293-7071 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com david@westonfirm.com KELLY SERVICE: "Gaffers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Gaffers, and all others similarly-situated v. Kelly Service, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-10128 (E.D. Mich., January 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract. Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, offer a comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well as staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire, and direct-hire basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Hedgecock" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed on October 28, 2015, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA- Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2, which, together with Merger Sub 1 and Lam Research, are referred to as the "Lam Defendants." The action, captioned Hedgecock v. KLA- Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287329, was filed by a purported KLA-Tencor stockholder as a purported class action on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates) against all defendants. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants (the KLA-Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and that the Lam Defendants aided and abetted such breaches. On December 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA- Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA- Tencor's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Karr" Action --------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed on October 28, 2015, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA- Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2. This action, captioned Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No. 115CV287331, was filed by one of the same plaintiff's law firms as in the Hedgecock action on behalf of a different purported KLA- Tencor stockholder, as a purported class action on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates) against all defendants. The allegations in the Karr complaint are similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock action. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants (the KLA-Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and that KLA-Tencor and the Lam Defendants aided and abetted such breaches. On December 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA- Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA- Tencor's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as well as an award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rooney" Case --------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed on November 10, 2015, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board. This action, captioned Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700, was filed on behalf of a purported KLA-Tencor stockholder, as a purported class action on behalf of all similarly-situated KLA- Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates) against all defendants. The allegations in the Rooney complaint are similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock and Karr actions. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants (the KLA- Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process. On December 23, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA- Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA- Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable, as well as an award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Spoleto" Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed on December 29, 2015, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA- Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2. This action, captioned Spoleto Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552, was filed by another purported KLA-Tencor stockholder as a purported class action on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates) against all defendants. The allegations in the Spoleto complaint are similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock, Karr, and Rooney actions. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants (the KLA-Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and making disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the Lam Defendants aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. LA CAR GUY: Violated FLSA & Labor Code, "Madrid" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Willy Madrid, an individual; Juan Carlos Passarelli, an individual, Jose Luis Anzora, an individual, the Plaintiffs, v. L.A. Car Guy Body Shop, a business of unknown entity; Lexus Santa Monica, a business of unknown entity, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC605686 (Cal. Super Ct., County of Los Angeles, December 29, 2016), seek to recover business expenses, unpaid compensation, declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and any other appropriate remedy, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Labor Code. L.A. Car Guy Body Shop is a business entity of unknown form, operating as an auto body repair in the greater Los Angeles area with two locations located at 1020 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, and in 8635 Aviation Blvd Inglewood, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ophir J. Bitton, Esq. BITTON & ASSOCIATES 7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 356-1006 Facsimile: (818) 524-1224 LA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Shatakeia Deonshay Coleman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LA Department of Veterans Affairs Northwest Louisiana War Veterans Home, Case No. 5:15-cv-02912 (W.D. La., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. LA Department of Veterans Affairs Northwest Louisiana War Veterans Home operates five Veterans homes in Los Angeles. Shatakeia Deonshay Coleman is a pro se plaintiff. LAW OFFICE OF RORY: Faces "Cover" Suit Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Cove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 09981 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Law Office of Rory W. Clark operates a law firm located at 5743 Corsa Ave, Westlake Village, CA 91362. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN PC 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 E-mail: aginsburg@creditlaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Case Remanded to King County Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington remanded to the King County Superior Court the case captioned, CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, a Washington professional corporation, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, foreign insurance companies, Defendants, Case No. C15-1705RSM (W.D. Wash.). On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff Chan Healthcare Group (Chan) filed this proposed class action lawsuit in King County Superior Court. In that Complaint, Plaintiff raised a claim for violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The claim relates to a prior litigation and settlement in Illinois State Court, Lebanon Chiropractic Clinis, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Lebanon). In that case, Liberty Mutual and Safeco insurance companies settled a nationwide class action alleging Illinois state law claims arising from Liberty's reductions to its bills on Medpay insurance claims in Illinois. However, Lebanon purportedly settled all claims of every health care provider in the country for reductions taken to their medical bills by Liberty or Safeco under any auto policy issued in any state in the country for a period going back seven years and forward for the next five years. On September 8, 2015, Chan filed a motion in the Safeco case asking for a declaration that the Lebanon agreement, release and waiver could not be applied to the Washington state law claims of Washington providers. Chan also prepared a similar motion in the Liberty case. The parties ultimately stipulated to have those motions heard, along with others, before Judge Shaffer on October 30, 2015. On October 28, 2015, Defendants removed the instant action to the Court. Defendants allege that on October 26, 2015, they learned for the first time, through Chan's Reply in support of its motion for declaratory judgment, that Chan would be asserting a federal due-process argument seeking a judicial declaration that the Illinois judgment approving the Lebanon Settlement denied Washington class members like Chan due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants assert that because the due process argument acts as an independent claim, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. In the motion, Plaintiff moved for remand and for fees arguing that no federal question jurisdiction exists, the well-pleaded complaint doctrine does not create jurisdiction, removal was untimely, Defendants are judicially estopped from removal and Defendants are collaterally estopped from bringing a federal due process issue before this Court so therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction. Defendants respond that their removal was timely, Plaintiff's "other paper" filed in state court demonstrates federal question jurisdiction and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/v1d0vhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martinez found that Defendants' removal untimely because the September 25th motion triggered the 30-day period under Section 1446(b)(3), requiring the Defendants to file the Notice of Removal by October 25, 2015. Defendants did not remove until October 28, 2015. The Court also found that Plaintiff is entitled for fees and costs because Defendants had no objectively reasonable basis for removal given defense counsel's involvement with the related cases and their acknowledgments about the Chan motions made to the court in the Illinois appeal. Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental motion for fees and costs no later than 14 days from the date of the Order. Rafael Espinoza is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215)884.2491 Atlas Railroad Construction, LLC is represented by Karen Gal-Or, Esq. -- kgalor@jonesday.com -- Stanley Weiner, Esq. -- sweiner@jonesday.com -- Corey Clay, Esq. -- cclay@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY LINDER PSYCHIATRIC: Class Certification Denied in "Stallsmith" -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification and sustained Defendants' objections in the case captioned, JOELLE STALLSMITH, Plaintiff, v. LINDER PSYCHIATRIC GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15- CV-0667 CKD (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff alleges she was not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, was not paid for overtime, was not provided meal and rest breaks, and was not provided proper itemized wage statements. Plaintiff seeks past due wages, interest and penalties. Plaintiff contends that defendants pay employee clinicians only one hour for each patient visit, regardless of how much time is spent preparing the paperwork after each clinical visit. Plaintiff also assert that clinicians are not paid for time spent preparing for patient visits, preparing administrative paperwork, preparing clinical notes after visits, responding to telephone calls from patients, waiting for no-show patients, performing mandated reporting requirements, waiting between patient visits, responding to mandatory insurance audits, and attending staff meetings. Plaintiff's proposed class comprises all employees of defendants from November 18, 2010 to the present who are currently or formerly employed as a clinician/provider and who are/were paid pursuant to a "Piece Meal Employment Agreement" or a "Participation Agreement." Brian Crone and Erick Turner appeared for plaintiff. Alden Parker appeared for defendants. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)(1). Plaintiff here contends class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). Among other arguments, defendants contend that plaintiff fails to demonstrate numerosity, commonality, or typicality. Dispositive is plaintiff's failure to establish that there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class. In her Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ox2jaZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Delaney concluded that plaintiff fails to demonstrate commonality of her claims because the underlying claims upon which causes of action are predicated lack commonality. Joelle Stallsmith is represented by: Brian Samuel Crone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN CRONE 1104 Corporate Way, Suite 226 Sacramento, CA 95831 Tel: (916) 395-4464 - and - Erick C. Turner, Esq. TURNER LAW GROUP 110 W C St #2010, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619)232-2311 Defendants are represented by Melissa Marie Whitehead, Esq. -- mwhitehead@weintraub.com -- Alden John Parker, Esq. -- aparker@weintraub.com -- WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN LONG ISLAND: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Alfredo Reyes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Long Island Waterproofing Company, Long Island Waterproofing Company, and John Puma, Case No. 2:15-cv-07400-SJF- AKT (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a waterproofing company in Long Island, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: support2@laborlaws.com MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp Rattles --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 16, 2015 Posting date: December 16, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56326 This recall involves Manhattan Toy Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp rattle. The wooden toy rattle features a rattling sound, a nose that spins and colourful bead limbs that bend, twist and clack. This toy is intended for children 6+ months. The rattle can be identified by item number 213340 and UPC 011964475421. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the rattle can break and release small parts, posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor The Manhattan Group, LLC has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these rattles in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 534 of the recalled rattles were sold in Canada. The recalled rattles were sold from February 2015 to December 2015. Manufactured in Thailand. Distributor: The Manhattan Group, LLC Minneapolis Minnesota UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from children and return to the retail outlet where it was purchased for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact The Manhattan Group, LLC by telephone at 1-800-541-1345 or visit the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/U1YDHe MARINA BISCOCHOS: "Almonte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Daniel Almonte v. Marina Biscochos Dominicanos Corp., Nanuer Quijada, and Manuel Quijada, Case No. 1:16-cv-00102-ILG-JO (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the retail bakery and catering business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com MASERATI: Recalls Granturismo Convertible 2016, 2016 Models ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015596TC ID number: 2015596 Manufacturer recall number: 300 Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with a non-galvanize treated main fuel delivery line, making them susceptible to corrosion. Overtime, corroded fuel lines could potentially leak which, in the presence of an ignition source, would increase the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the main fuel delivery lines with galvanized lines. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MASERATI GRANTURISMO CONVERTIBLE 2016, 2016 MCFADGEN'S BAKERY: Recalls Fiesta Spice Cakes Due to Tree Nut ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: McFadgen's Bakery Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10255 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ----- product --- ----- ---------- Mom's Fiesta Spice 500 g All codes 0 61364 18704 2 Cake where walnut is not declared on the label. MERCEDES-BENZ: Recall C Class 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 3047 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015594TC ID number: 2015594 On certain vehicles, an error in the electric power steering control unit software could result in the deactivation of the electric power steering assist. This would unexpectedly increase the steering effort force necessary to steer the vehicle at lower vehicle speeds, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will update the power steering software. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MERCEDES-BENZ C CLASS 2015 MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Looms in British Columbia Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a British Columbia class action is scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. "Three antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005," the Company said. "In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. The other two cases are inactive." MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Cell Phone Litigation Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that trial court proceedings related to the U.S. cell phone litigation are stayed pending resolution of an appeal. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. Microsoft has assumed responsibility for these claims as part of Nokia Corporation's ("Nokia") Devices and Services business ("NDS") acquisition and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that litigation is not yet active in the Canadian cell phone class action as several defendants remain to be served. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. MEREDITH CORP: Defending Class Suits over Media General Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Meredith Corporation is defending shareholder class action lawsuits over the Company's merger agreement with Media General, Inc., Meredith said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the Company and Media General, Inc. (Media General) terminated their merger agreement under which the companies would have combined to form Meredith Media General. In exchange for terminating the merger agreement, the Company received $60.0 million in cash, which will be recognized as income in the Company's third quarter of fiscal 2016, and an opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of certain broadcast and digital assets currently owned by Media General. Between September 21, 2015 and October 21, 2015, four purported shareholders of Meredith filed putative class action lawsuits in Iowa state and federal court against Meredith, members of the Meredith board of directors, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub 2, and Media General. The three state court cases are captioned Agans v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 EQCE078935, Sneed v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 EQCE079057, and Martin v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 CVCV050706 and were all filed in Polk County, Iowa. The federal case is captioned Mundy v. Lacy, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00371 and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The complaints in all four cases generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and the putative class by failing to properly value Meredith, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Meredith, and approving deal protection provisions in the merger agreement. In addition, the plaintiffs in the Mundy litigation filed an amended complaint that also alleges that Meredith and the individual defendants caused the filing of a false and misleading registration statement, and assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 related to the filing of the registration statement. The plaintiffs also claim that Meredith, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches. The complaints generally seek a declaration that the cases should be maintained as a class action, an injunction enjoining the transaction, rescission of the merger agreement, the creation of a constructive trust, an accounting of all damages, and an award of attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs. Meredith believes that the claims asserted in each of these actions are without merit and intends to defend each of them vigorously. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kato" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Kato, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. a/k/a Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00002 -MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Barbee" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Barbee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00001-KM-JBC (D.N.J., January 1, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com MILLSTONE KFC INC: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto L. Cordoba and Placido Luis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Millstone KFC, Inc. d/b/a KFC, JDDS Food LLC, Sanj Kanwar and Atul Patel, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00059-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., January 5, 2016), seeks liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and further legal and equitable relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. Sec. 34:11-56(a) et seq. Defendants employed Plaintiffs as kitchen/food service workers at their restaurants. Cordoba and Luis often worked in excess of 70 hours per week without overtime compensation. Millstone KFC, Inc. is a New Jersey Corporation with its main business address at 564 Monmouth Road, Cream Ridge, NJ 08514. It operates a KFC franchise located at Brier Hill Court, Building C Suite 208, East Brunswick, NJ 09916. JDDS Food LLC is a New Jersey Domestic Corporation with its principal place of business at 564 Monmouth Road, Cream Ridge, NJ 08514. Sanjiv Kanwar and Atul Patel co-own these companies, all operating KFC fast food restaurants franchises. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: 888-239-4410 Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 1240 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015597TC ID number: 2015597 Manufacturer recall number: C1008210 On certain vehicles, the fuel return hose could deteriorate when subjected to various chemicals and lubricants, such as those used when cleaning the vehicle or used in certain rear body applications. If the fuel return hose were to deteriorate, it could swell and come off. This would result in a fuel leak, which in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire. Correction: Dealers will inspect the fuel return hose. If a defective hose is found installed, it will be replaced with an improved hose. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MITSUBISHI FUSO FEC52 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MITSUBISHI FUSO FEC72 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MITSUBISHI FUSO FEC92 2012, 2013, 2014 NANCY'S RESTAURANT: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Anibal Velasquez, and all others similarly-situated v. Nancy's Restaurant and David Sanders, Case No. 2:16-cv-00250 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com NATURAL HEALTH: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liangbin Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S. Davidson, Case No. 2:16-cv-00309 (C.D. Cal., January 14, 2016) 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. Natural Health Trends Corp. operates as an international direct selling and e-commerce company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com NETFLIX INC: March 17 Oral Argument Set in Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument has been set for March 17, 2016, in an appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit in California. On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv- 00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25, 2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, oral argument has been set for March 17, 2016. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. NORMANDIN'S: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege in Emails ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Normandin's request to declare the email "Jouvenat 'generated' work-product emails" as attorney-client privilege in the case captioned, ALAN BRINKER, Plaintiff, v. NORMANDIN'S, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-003007-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Alan Brinker sues Normandin's d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram and OneCommand, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Normandin provided Brinker a privilege log which identified certain documents Normandin did not intend to produce. Brinker disputed whether some of those documents could properly be withheld. Brinker and Normandin attempted to resolve the dispute but they were unable to do so. The parties therefore filed discovery dispute joint report (DDJR) 1. Brinker claims three different types of documents have been improperly withheld: (1) documents withheld for "Privacy" and "Trade Secret" reasons; (2) documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege but that are not communications between attorneys and clients; and (3) documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege but that were also sent to non-clients. Normandin asked the court to conclude that the email Jouvenat "generated" work-product emails in his capacity as an ESI consultant is protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Normandin argues privilege applies to confidential attorney-client communications which are contained in emails between Normandin's employees and that that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A) attaches attorney-client privilege to all emails sent to or written by a consultant hired by counsel. In his Order dated January 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/XnwPw2from Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd concluded that the materials requested by Brinker are relevant and that the burden of producing those materials would be proportional to the needs of the case. Normandin has not carried its burden of proof for any work-product designation and fails to persuade the court that Jouvenat was actually retained as a consultant and tasked with the creation of work product. Normandin is directed to produce the documents requested by Brinker in DDJR 1 by February 20, 2016. Alan Brinker is represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne McEntee, Esq. -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Allyson Janay Ferguson, Esq. -- jferguson@terrellmarshall.com -- Mary Bondy Reiten, Esq. -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Michael Francis Ram, Esq. -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP Normandin's represented by Andrew Stearns, Esq. -- astearns@boglawyers.com -- BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO Onecommand, Inc. is represented by Sean P. Flynn, Esq. -- sflynn@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES, LLP & Steven Charles Coffaro, Esq. -- steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com -- KEATING MUETHING AND KLEKAMP PLL OSI SYSTEMS: $15,000,000 Settlement Granted Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- OSI Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has entered final judgment approving the $15 million settlement and dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against the defendants in a securities class action. On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the "Securities Class Action"). Following mediation, the parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which was filed with the Court on August 21, 2015 and provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class Action (the "Settlement"). Neither the Company nor the individual defendants conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and continue to believe that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class Action. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company will pay $15.0 million (the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company and/or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action. On December 21, 2015, the Court entered final judgment approving the Settlement and dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against the defendants in the Securities Class Action. The Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully covered and funded by the Company's insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies. PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Uzzol Siddiky, and all others similarly-situated v. Patina Restaurant Group, LLC aka RA Patina Restaurants, LLC dba Lincoln Ristorante, Case No. 1:16-cv-00328 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as "Lincoln Ristorante" located in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq. Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 257-6800 Fax: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com PGA TOUR: N.D. Cal. Judge Throws Out PGA Caddies' Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed with prejudice professional caddies' proposed class action demanding a cut of the $50 million annual ad revenue the PGA Tour makes from selling corporate logos on caddies' bibs. Caddies sign contracts for their work are not just "human billboards," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said in his Feb. 11 order. Eighty-three caddies sued the PGA Tour in February 2015, seeking a cut of the ad revenue the Tour makes from corporate logos on bibs that caddies wear without compensation. Lead plaintiff William Michael Hicks has caddied for more than 30 years, working for Payne Stewart, Greg Norman, Steve Stricker and Justin Leonard. The PGA Tour requires caddies to wear bibs with logos during tournaments, and also may use the caddies' images and bibs in television ads. The caddies claimed the bib requirement violated their contracts with the Tour, violated their "right of publicity," and breached federal antitrust and trademark laws. But Chhabria ruled in December that the caddies incorrectly defined the market in the lawsuit, which alleged they received no ad revenue and never consented to the Tour's commercial use of their likenesses and images. "I think your argument depends on this really artificial definition of the market that you've concocted," Chhabria said at a December hearing. Class attorney Chris Gaduroy argued that the market for endorsements displayed during tournaments was more valuable and distinct from other forms of endorsements, including TV commercials and print ads in golf magazines. Viewers' eyes were fixed on the screen during live play, as opposed to commercials, Gaduroy said, which can be tuned out or ignored. But Chhabria, acknowledging the differences between the forms of endorsements, ruled that the caddies failed to explain how live- play endorsements were so distinct that they formed a separate market. "I think you've kind of gerrymandered the market to try to shoehorn this dispute into an antitrust claim," Chhabria said. Chhabria allowed the caddies to submit a brief on their breach of contract claim. But on Tuesday, Chhabria dismissed that claim with prejudice after the proposed class had more than doubled to include 168 caddies. Chhabria said the caddies signed contracts with the Tour and could not claim that corporate sponsorship on bibs made them "human billboards." "Even if this contract language might appear susceptible to two different interpretations when considered in isolation, there is only one reasonable interpretation when the language is considered in the context of this case," Chhabria wrote. Chhabria said that caddies have been required to wear the bibs "for decades." "So caddies know when they enter the profession, that wearing a bib during tournaments is part of the job," the ruling states. "For that reason, there is no merit to the caddies' contention that contracts somehow prevent the Tour from requiring them to wear bibs." Chhabria was not entirely unsympathetic to the caddies. "The caddies' overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not," he wrote. Should the caddies appeal, it will go to the Ninth Circuit. The case captioned, WILLIAM MICHAEL HICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-00489- VC (N.D. Cal.). R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. to Hear Age-Bias Case En Banc ------------------------------------------------------ Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed to rehear en banc claims that R.J. Reynolds rejected a middle-aged man's sales rep application six times in favor of younger applicants. Richard Villarreal says he first applied online for a "territory manager" sales rep position with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in November 2007, when he was 49. After allegedly receiving no response from R.J. Reynolds for more than two years, Villarreal filed an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in May 2010. Villarreal meanwhile applied and was rejected for a territory manager position five more times, he claims, later adding that allegation to his complaint. On April 2, 2012, the EEOC declined to take action against R.J. Reynolds, and sent Villarreal a right-to-sue notice, according to court records. Villarreal then filed an age discrimination class action against R.J. Reynolds, consulting firm Pinstripe Inc. and now-dismissed CareerBuilder LLC in Northern Georgia Federal Court. Noting that he failed to file his discrimination charge within 180 days of the discriminatory act, as required by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Villarreal's complaint says the limitations period should be tolled until April 2010. Villarreal says the facts necessary to support his discrimination charge could not have been apparent until less than a month before he filed it. But a federal judge partially dismissed the complaint in January 2015, finding that Villarreal failed to allege what those facts were, that only current employees can sue for disparate impact, and that all claims related to hiring decisions before Nov. 19, 2009, are untimely. Villarreal moved to amend, arguing that he had not known until April 2010 that R.J. Reynolds used guidelines to target candidates "2-3 years out of college," but to "stay away from" candidates with "8-10 years" of prior sales experience. But the court refused to let him amend, finding that he never contacted R.J. Reynolds to find out why his application was rejected and failed to allege that the firm concealed anything. Villarreal voluntarily dismissed his remaining claim and appealed. A divided 11th Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling on Nov. 30, 2015. "As it turns out, R.J. Reynolds's hiring statistics suggest a pattern of hiring younger applicants," Judge Beverly Martin wrote for the three-judge panel. "Of the 1,024 people hired as territory managers from September 2007 to July 2010, only 19 were over the age of 40." The ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims by job applicants, the ruling states. "In fact, the statute is unclear on this question," Martin wrote. "However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the ADEA, has reasonably and consistently interpreted the statute to cover claims like Mr. Villarreal's. We must defer to that reading rather than venture our own guess about what the statute means." The panel also ruled last November that Villarreal was entitled to equitable tolling. But Judge Clyde Roger Vinson dissented, holding that tolling is only appropriate in the case of "extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable with due diligence." "Mr. Villarreal does not even claim that there are any extraordinary circumstances in this case (like fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment by R.J. Reynolds) that should warrant this extraordinary and sparingly-used remedy," Vinson wrote. On Feb. 10, the 11th Circuit, led by Chief Judge Ed Carnes, nonetheless granted a petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's November opinion. Villarreal's attorney, Jim Finberg with Altshuler Berzon in San Francisco, said the 11th Circuit's decision was "well reasoned and correctly decided, and will be re-affirmed by the entire court en banc." R.J. Reynolds spokesman Bryan Hatchell declined to comment on the ruling. Pinstripe did not immediately return a request for comment emailed Feb. 11. The tobacco giant's parent company, Reynolds American Inc., reportedly reaped $3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015, and more than $10.6 billion for the full year. The case captioned, No. 15-10602, RICHARD M. VILLARREAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, PINSTRIPE, IN INC., Defendants - Appellees, CAREERBUILDER, LLC, Defendant (11th Cir.). REGIS CORP: Faces Consumer & Wage and Hour Actions -------------------------------------------------- Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been faced with allegations of purported class-wide consumer and wage and hour violations. "Litigation is inherently unpredictable and the outcome of these matters cannot presently be determined," the Company said. "Although the actions are being vigorously defended, the Company could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations in any particular period." REGULARLY TECH: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Casano, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regularly Technology Corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-00096-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) arises from the Defendant's practice of procuring consumer reports for employment purposes, without first making proper disclosures. Regularly Technology Corporation operates facilities across the state of Florida, including a location on Spring Hill. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com RORY W. CLARK: Faces "Cove" 2nd Suit Over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Cove, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00003-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Law Office of Rory W. Clark operates a law firm located at 5743 Corsa Ave, Westlake Village, CA 91362. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN PC 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 E-mail: aginsburg@creditlaw.com SELECT AUTO: Faces Spanish-Speaking Workers' FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Ilmer Linares Martinez, Ronaldo Ordonez, and Bryan Argola On behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated v. Select Auto Imports Incorporated, and Mohammad Hajimohammad a.k.a Mike Hajimohammad, Case 1:16-cv-00073-TSE-JFA (E.D.Va., January 21, 2016), was brought on behalf of Spanish-speaking workers with little or no fluency in either spoken or written English, to require Defendants to pay back wages owed to them and to the Plaintiff Class, which Defendants failed to pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants Select and Mohammad have had two or more employees who have regularly handled and worked on goods and/or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce, such as machines, automobiles, equipment, tools, supplies and cleaners that were transported or produced out-of-state. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas F.Hennessy, Esq. 4015 Chain Bridge Road Suite 6 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone: (703) 865-8836 Fax: (703) 865-7633 E-mail: th@virginiawage.com STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit Seeks Damages over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Dugas, Plaintiffs, vs. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., HST Lessee San Diego, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, HST GP San Diego, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 16CV0014 GPC BLM (S.D.Cal., January 5, 2016), seeks declaratory and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest for violation of Section 17533.7 of the California Business & Professions Code. Starwood had disclosed that hackers had breached its database containing sensitive customer records including names, credit card numbers, security codes and expiration dates. Dugas has been and is a customer at the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the credit card that he used for purchases at the Sheraton San Diego restaurants and spa was used for unauthorized purchases. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., is a Maryland Corporation and is the franchisor of the Sheraton brand. HST Lessee San Diego, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, and HST GP San Diego, LLC operate the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Will Lemkul, Esq. MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (858) 566-7600 Fax: (858) 566-6602 - and - Mark Potter, Esq. Dennis Price, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (858) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com dennisp@potterhandy.com STEVE BEATTIE: "Calderon" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Calderon, and all others similarly-situated v. Steve Beattie, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC605811 (Cal. Super., December 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants over unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to provide wage statements in violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendant offers residential painting services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 TOP HANDS: "Triplett" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Triplett, and all others similarly-situated v. Top Hands Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant provides oilfield services to oil and gas exploration companies throughout South Texas and the vast Eagle Ford Shale area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Brady, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com TRADEHOMES SHOE: "Demoulin" Suit Alleges FACTA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Demoulin, and all others similarly-situated v. Tradehomes Shoe Stores, Inc., Case No. 2015CH18850 (Ill. Cir., December 31, 2015), seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs for Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has negligently, recklessly and/or willfully violated FACTA and failed to protect Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, against identity theft, credit card fraud, and debit card fraud by continuing to print the first six digits and the last four digits of the card number on receipts provided to debit card and credit card cardholders transacting business with Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates five Tradehome stores located in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Magier" Suit Over Under-filled Canned Tuna --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Magier, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trader Joe's Co. and Trader Joe's East, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-00043-PGG (S.D.N.Y, January 5, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgement interest, restitution and all other forms of monetary relief, injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs resulting from negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty of merchantability and in violation of the New York General Business Law, Sec. 349, 350 (Deceptive Practices or Acts). Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe's underfills their house brand canned tuna. Trader Joe's Co. is a California corporation located in Monrovia, California with 457 stores in 40 states. Its subsidiary, Trader Joe's East, Inc. is a Massachusets corporation located in Boston. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Neal D. Deckant, Esq. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 989-9113 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com TRANSMISSION 4: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Mendez Paz, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Transmission 4 Less Co. of America and Salim N. Safran, Individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-00895 (N.D.Ill., January 21, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, commonly known as the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees proper wages. Transmission 4 Less is a transmission repair shop in Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Best, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 312-445-9662 E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com TTI FLOOR: Faces Consumer Class Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Hoover, by its corporate entity TTI Floor, faces a federal class action in Trenton, N.J., over it "terms & conditions" that purport to bar consumers from seeking redress with respect to unsafe products. TWO COUSIN'S: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Maldonado, Plaintiff, v. Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Wholesale and Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Retail and Brian O'Donohoe, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-00045-SJF-SIL, (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks liquidated and/or punitive damages, award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and statutory penalties for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws. Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Wholesale and Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Retail, are New York Corporations located in Freeport, New York owned by O'Donohoe. Plaintiff worked as a fish preparer and claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.D. Cal. Judge May Toss Cabbies' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that, a federal judge in San Francisco said Feb. 11 he was inclined to dismiss a case claiming that Uber made false claims about the safety of its rides. A group of 19 cab companies sued Uber Technologies in March 2015, claiming the ride-sharing company lied about offering "the safest rides on the road" on its website, in advertisements and in media statements. This past month, the California Public Utilities Commission fined an Uber subsidiary $7.6 million for delaying responses to requests for safety information and data. At Feb. 11 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said he was inclined to dismiss the class action because the case did not seem like it belonged in Federal Court. "I wonder what a case concerning California's unfair competition law is doing in the federal circuit," Tigar said. Tigar also said that the plaintiffs' litigation seemed to interfere with the state utility commission's ongoing proposed imposition of new regulations on Uber, which include tight inspections on how the company handles its drivers' criminal records. Harold Jaffe, who argued for the plaintiffs, disagreed. "Ongoing review doesn't mean that all conduct under review is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the PUC, any more than the PUC would necessarily have jurisdiction if I was an Uber driver and I ran counsel over at the crosswalk by going through a red light," Jaffe said. Tigar noted that many of the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint refer specifically to actions taken by the commission, and wondered whether those particular allegations were actionable in court. Uber also moved to strike from the plaintiffs' complaint allegations for the purpose of "context" and "background," but Tigar seemed skeptical. "I don't like motions to strike, and context and background are permissible reasons to put things in a complaint," he said. Although Tigar tentatively dismissed the complaint, he said that he would not necessarily do so with prejudice. Jaffe's office is in Oakland. Uber is represented by Marshall Wallace, Esq. -- mwallace@allenmatkins.com -- with Allen Matkins in San Francisco. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Top Executives Face Charges in France ------------------------------------------------------------ Philippe Sotto, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two top Uber executives appeared on Feb. 11 in court in charges that could send them to prison and offer the ride-hailing company one of its most serious legal challenges to date in France. The San Francisco-based company shut down the low-cost UberPop service, which connected users to non-professional drivers and prompted the criminal charges. But it continues to operate in France despite repeated strikes and sometimes violent tensions with taxi drivers, and is not outlawed entirely as it is in Spain and Italy. Charges against Thibaud Simphal, general manager for France, and Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, chief for Western Europe, include running an illegal taxi operation, commercial deception and violation of French privacy law by illegally stocking, processing and recording personal information. They face up to five years in prison and a 300,000 euro ($338,000) fine each if convicted. Uber France is also charged and faces a 1.5 million-euro ($1.7 million) fine. The two managers were notified of the charges directly by the Paris prosecutor's office just after being held in custody for hours last June. A spokesman for Uber France, Thomas Meister, said it is "extremely unusual to be summoned to appear in court directly by a prosecutor" after a police investigation. He also questioned the lack of oversight from an investigating judge or the French agency that specializes in privacy violations. "Our lawyers don't even know what we are exactly blamed for," especially in the privacy counts, Mr. Meister told The Associated Press ahead of the trial. More than 200 UberPop drivers have been fined under fast-track procedures in France and one was handed a 15-day suspended prison term, but the Feb. 11 trial is the first for Uber managers in France. Uber France has already been convicted of commercial deception and fined 150,000 euros ($170,000) over UberPop. French taxis drivers argue that Uber sidesteps taxes, social charges and licensing fees, and endangers passengers. Uber calls the French system outdated and says it needs radical reform to keep up with technological changes. "We are not challenging labor law", said Mr.Meister, the Uber France spokesman. "We rather put order into the system. We are the symptom of a problem, not responsible for the problem." Mr. Meister complained critics point the finger only at Uber, not at similar smartphone app-based services like Heetch, a French startup. "There are double standards", he said. The French government has kept up its offensive with document checks of drivers suspected to be illegally moonlighting for Uber and similar services. On Feb. 11, hours before the start of the trial, police teamed up with anti-fraud investigators to check taxis and car services at Paris' Gare de Lyon train station. Several chauffeurs were fined for illegal taxi activity after being caught carrying a single passenger. The drivers have particular status allowing them to carry a minimum of two passengers, but many skirt the regulations and use platforms like Uber to pick up single passengers. "We are talking about transporting people. So when you are in this business you need to have a qualification and respect the rules," said Laurent Grandguillaume, the new mediator in the conflict between taxis and Uber-like alternatives. UNIQUE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unique Management Services, Inc., d/b/a Unique National Collections, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06869 (E.D. Pa., December 31, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Unique Management Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm located at 119 E Maple St, Jeffersonville, IN 47130. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Hear Arguments in Data Collection Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that rhetoric heated up Feb. 12 in the courtroom of the judge who blocked the government's bulk collection of cellphone metadata, as the government and a conservative activist argued over what to do with three cases against the National Security Agency while awaiting an appeals court ruling in Washington. The D.C. Circuit is considering whether the passage of the USA Freedom Act in June renders moot the injunction Judge Richard Leon issued against the National Security Agency's bulk collection program in November, the second such injunction Leon has issued. The same court reversed Leon's original injunction in August, finding that conservative legal activist Larry Klayman had not proven the NSA had even collected his data. The USA Freedom Act modified several provisions of the Patriot Act and purported to end the NSA's bulk collection of metadata, though this fact is disputed by Klayman, who currently has three cases against the NSA and other government agencies pending in Leon's court. The cases still pending before Leon include the one that spawned the injunction currently being appealed, a second concerning the collection of internet data under a related program, and a class action suit alleging similar violations to the second case. Klayman pleaded with Leon during the Feb. 12 hearing to allow all three of his pending cases to go forward and proposed consolidating the first two in order to get the cases decided as soon as possible, arguing they have been on hold for too long. "In order to move forward, I don't think we can wait another two- and-a-half years for the D.C. Circuit to rule," Klayman said. "We might all be dead by then." Leon was largely silent on Feb. 12, a departure from previous hearings where he frequently interrupted lawyers to ask questions and make points. Klayman used this silence to emphasize the importance of the cases before Leon, calling the judge "patriotic" for blocking the collection program and saying he was the only member of the court system willing to stand up to the program. At one point, Klayman alleged the D.C. Circuit was acting as a separate arm of the executive branch, seeking to uphold the NSA program regardless of its constitutionality. Klayman asked Leon to open discovery on the first two cases after consolidating them, and invited Leon to have a conversation in his chambers with a CIA whistleblower if he still had doubts about the severity of the collection programs. "We can't have this going on in a civilized society," Klayman told the judge. The government's claims at the hearing were far less moralistic, instead claiming Klayman's cases have major issues the lawyer has overlooked. Regardless of how the D.C. Circuit comes down on Leon's injunction, Klayman has not addressed how he could collect damages from the federal government under his lawsuit, as he has not proposed a sovereign immunities waiver, argued Rodney Patton, who represented the government. "There simply are no viable damages claims at all," Patton said. Patton also claimed Klayman's second complaint has no merit because the bulk metadata program it challenges was authorized under federal law and was not the same as the cellphone collection program. Finally, Patton said Klayman's class action suit was essentially identical to the internet case and is an example of claim- splitting, which should invalidate the case. In a separate issue, Klayman has not properly served the individuals he named in the cases, said James Whitman, who represents, in their individual capacities, President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Roger Vinson, the federal judge who authorized the Verizon warrant to collect metadata. After Whitman sat down, Klayman came to the lectern again, incensed. "They have a million reasons why this can't go forward and none of them are valid," Klayman said. He alleged the government was playing a "shell game" with the USA Freedom Act and the internet program, and pushed back against the claim that he had not properly served the individual defendants, wondering if he had to jump the White House fence to serve Obama. Klayman also pushed aside the sovereign immunity issue. "They don't have sovereign immunity to violate the Constitution," he said. Leon gave little indication at the hearing of what he intends to do with the pending cases, but did tell Whitman he would rule "as soon as possible" on his request to dismiss the allegedly improperly served individual defendants. UNITIL CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for 1st Quarter 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC") has set oral argument during the first quarter of 2016 in a class action appeal. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the SJC, and the SJC upheld the lower Court's order. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company filed its opposition to this motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 27, 2015, the Court issued its decision allowing class certification and denying the Company's motion for summary judgment. The Company appealed this decision to the SJC, and on October 15, 2015, the SJC granted the Company's motion for direct review of the case, and it is being briefed by the parties and set for oral argument during the first quarter of 2016. The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe that both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have a material impact on its financial position, operating results or cash flows. VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI: CA Affirms Class Cert. of Speed Limit Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert A. Hendrickson of the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed an order from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas certifying a class action challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance in the case captioned, DOREEN BARROW, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI, et al., Defendants- Appellants, Case No. CA2015-03-043 (Ohio App.). The Automated Speed Enforcement Program (ASEP) was instituted in July 2012 with the adoption of Ordinance 1917 which aimed to deter motorists from exceeding the speed limit at several intersections in its village. In July 2013, six named plaintiffs filed suit against New Miami challenging the Ordinance. This was followed by an amended complaint which advanced four causes of action. Count I sought a declaration that the Ordinance divested the municipal court of jurisdiction over traffic violations in contravention of the Ohio Constitution. Count II sought a declaration that the Ordinance violated appellees' due process rights. Count III prayed for injunctive relief prohibiting continued enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional Ordinance. Finally, Count IV sought equitable restitution for any penalties or fees paid by appellees pursuant to the allegedly unconstitutional Ordinance. In March 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees on Counts I, II, and III. The court also certified a class comprised of all persons who had received Notices of Liability under New Miami's ASEP. New Miami appealed the certification decision. In the first appeal, the court reversed and remanded for the trial court to clarify its findings in support of certification. The trial court issued a decision complying with our remand instructions in February 2015. On appeal, New Miami's sole assignment of error challenges the trial court's decision to certify the class. New Miami argues that the trial court failed to consider the threshold issue of whether the class representatives possessed jurisdictional standing to file suit. New Miami insists that the trial court erroneously equated the Civ.R. 23 class membership prerequisite with jurisdictional standing. Alternatively, New Miami urges that appellees failed to satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 23. In Opinion dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qGAU7F from Leagle.com, Judge Hendrickson hold that the trial court's decision reaffirming class certification sufficiently enunciated the bases upon which the court made its decision in support of class certification. Plaintiffs are represented by Paul M. DeMarco, Esq. -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC They are also represented by: Michael K. Allen, Esq. MICHAEL K. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES 810 Sycamore St., Floor 5 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: (513)823-4224 - and - Charles H. Rittgers, Esq. RITTGERS & RITTGERS 3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Village of New Miami is represented by Wilson G. Weisenfelder, Jr., Esq. -- WGW@Rendigs.com -- James J. Englert, Esq. -- JEnglert@Rendigs.com -- RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP XPRESS COURIER: "Riley" Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Xpress Courier Services, Inc., John W. Yarbrough, individually and as Officer and Director of Xpress Courier Services, Inc. and Michael Southall, individually and as Officer and Director of Xpress Courier Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00003-JM (D.N.J., January 5, 2016), seeks actual economic damages, liquidated and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment interest and such other and further relief in accordance with Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Arkansas Code Annotated Sec. 11-4-201, et seq. Xpress Courier Services, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation located at 9600 Southedge Drive 10, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227, with John W. Yarbrough as director. It provides courier/delivery services where the Plaintiff worked as a delivery truck driver. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime premium and has yet to be reimbursed for business related expenses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ZYNGA INC: Settlement of Suit over Inflated Shares Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that, after a very quick hearing on Feb. 11 morning, a federal judge in San Francisco gave final approval to a class action settlement of claims that Zynga artificially inflated its share prices. Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold their shares in the company for hundreds of millions of dollars. The plaintiffs said the alleged scheme allowed the executives to shift the company's revenue losses from the first quarter to the second quarter of 2012, which artificially inflated the price of Zynga stock during the first quarter. By the time Zynga disclosed its true financial status, its stock price fell 37 percent in a single day, according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley's October 2015 order preliminarily approving the settlement. The approved settlement fund is $23 million, and class members will receive a pro rata share of the fund based on their purchases of the Zynga stock at issue, according to Corley's final approval order. The estimated distribution will be $0.15 per share, Corley said. Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News in October 2015 that he expects about 100,000 claimants. About 25 percent of the settlement fund -- $5.7 million -- will go to attorneys' fees, and about $189,000 will cover litigation expenses. Norton is with Newman Ferrara, in New York City. He may be reached at: Jeffrey Norton, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 E-mail: JNorton@nfllp.com Zynga is represented by Anna White with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. She may be reached at: Anna White, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 755 Page Mill Rd # B 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Tel: (415) 268-7682 E-mail: awhite@mofo.com The case captioned, MARK H. DESTEFANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZYNGA INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSC (N.D. Cal.). ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *