/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160323.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 59 Headlines A & M CONTRACTORS: "Leyva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ABC CORP: "Vidal" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations AIR & LIQUID: Faces "Walker" Injury Suit in Delaware ALL HARVEST: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Siadek" Class Suit to C.D. California ANGEL'S I BAKERY: Fails to Pay Employees OT Wages, Action Claims APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action APPLUS VELOSI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Suit Says BASTROP, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Brown" Suit BEAR GLASS: Sued in New Jersey Over Communications Act Violation BHP BILLITON: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set BUFFALO WILD WINGS: To Defend Against Employees' Suit in N.Y. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Approval of "Marchese" Settlement CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Schedule Set for Summary Judgment Bids CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Wandel" Suit CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Gould" Suit CANADA: First Nations Wants Sixties Scoop Class Action Settled CASHCALL INC: Consumer Loans Fraudulent, "Sinclair" Suit Alleges CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES: Violated Wage Orders, "Vargas" Suit Says CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leasehold Interests CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Pappas" Class Suit in S.D. California CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CLIFFS NATURAL: To Defend Vigorously Against Class Action COGENT COMMS: Discovery in "Ambrosio" to Continue Until December COM DEV USA: "Tom" Suit Alleges ERISA & FAA Violations COMSCORE INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sommer" Suit Claims CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims CVS HEALTH: Defends Supplements Amid Memory-Enhancer Class Action DEJA VU: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing DIRECT DIGITAL: Bid for Heightened Class Standard Review Nixed DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in California DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: "Shipkovitz" Suit Removed to Dist. Maryland DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cantamaglia" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hale" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hemrich" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hodge" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL EMCOR GROUP: Subsidiary Settles "Vasquez" Class Action EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Maintenance Failure, "Sofia" Suit Claims FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims FIFTH THIRD: Settles Stock-Drop Class Action for $6 Million FIRSTMERIT CORP: "Wojno" Suit Seeks to Block Huntington Merger GARDEN CITY, KS: "Market" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violation GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Punitive Damages in Ignition Switch Case GFC LENDING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Violations of EFTA GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Layne" Suit Over Zofran Injuries GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "McClellan" Suit Over Zofran(R) GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Sumrall" Suit Over Use of Zofran GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: "Munoz" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. GRAPA LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Coleman" Suit Claims HBLC: Appeals Court Reverses FDCPA Class Action Dismissal HENRY HALL: Removes "Knight" Suit to Middle District of Georgia HERMES OF PARIS: "Chaney" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Pay Under NYLL HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over Online Portal's Pricing Tactics HOME COUNTY: Faces "Arias" Class Suit in California Superior Ct. HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $625M in Claims Pending in "Jaffe" Case HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules on Admission of Experts HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Madoff Investors Case Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Ontario HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Iraq Terror Victims Suit Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Deaths Due to Mexican Drug Cartels HSBC HOLDINGS: CALSTRS's 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Euribor Suit in N.Y. Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss ISDAfix Rates Suit Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval HSBC HOLDINGS: ERISA Action in Calif. Transferred to New York INT'L COFFEE & TEA: Fails to Pay Bonus, "Hosseini" Suit Says J.M. SMUCKER: Faces "Ocasio" Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY: Filed 6th Cir. Appeal in Retirees Suit KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Product Misbranding KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Higens" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding KRANG GROUP: "Skiba" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under NYLL LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Segev" Suit Over VTech Merger LENDMARK FINANCIAL: "Figgs" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court LORD & TAYLOR: Settles Charges Over Deceptive Instagram Posts LOS ANGELES, CA: To Settle curfew Class Action for $30 Million LUGG INC: Case Management Conference in "Sims" Set for July 27 LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay OT MATCH GROUP: IPO Documents Contain False Info, "Stein" Alleges MDL 2672: "Noggle" Suit Consolidated in California MDL 2677: "Carbone" Suit Transferred to Boston MDL 2677: "Triantafylidis" Case Transferred from Missouri MDL 2687: Environmental Research Suit Consolidated in N.J. MDL 2687: "Flambeau" Suit Moved to N.J. Court MDL 2687: Metropolitan Council Suit Moved to N.J. Court MDL 2687: City of Rochester Suit Consolidated in D. N.J. MIHOMECARE: Care Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action MIRACLE MAIDS: Violated FLSA, CMWWA & CWCA, "Valdez" Suit Claims MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action MONDAY SOCIAL: July 27 Case Management Conference in "Urrutia" MOODY'S CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Commerzbank Claim NATERA INC: "Cahoj" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act NEW LAND CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lead Poisoning Victims Get Average $17,000 Each NEW YORK: Feminine Hygiene Products to Be Exempted from Sale Tax NOODLES & COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: April 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set P.F. CHANG'S: Violated Unruh Act, "Arroyo" Suit Claims PIGGLY WIGGLY: "Spires" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation PIONEER ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Zimmerman" Suit Claims PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Facing Line 901 Incident Suits in Cal, Tex. PLANET EXPRESS CARGO: "Slebi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in "Garcia" Suit PPG INDUSTRIES: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Jimenez" Suit Claims PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removes John Virga Suit to S.D. Florida PTC THERAPEUTICS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports QUADAMI INC: "Sanchez-Herrera" Suit Seeks Spread of Hours Pay RAMIREZ SEAFOOD: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Paez" Suit Claims REB ENTERPRISES: "Mullen-Moore" FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. RUSHCARD: Prepares to Settle Prepaid Debit Card Class Actions S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Composers Sue TIDAL for Music Royalties SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Peckham" Class Suit in N.D. New York SAINT JOSEPH: Judge Approves $30MM Data Breach Settlement SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SEPHORA USA: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Alyssa" Suit Says SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Velandia" Suit Claims SITCO ENTERPRISES: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT STATE FARM: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Class Certification SUPER SHINE & DETAILING: Violated FLSA, "Canals" Suit Claims SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Worker Pleads Not Guilty T.F. LOUDERBACK: "Tyrone" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under CLC TACI INVESTMENTS: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay TEREX CORPORATION: Ace Class Suit Transferred to N. Dist. Georgia TEXAS: Flooding Class Action Mulled v. Sabine River Authority TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties, Pay TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under PPPA UBER: Prepares for Lengthy Trial in Drivers' Class Action UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Case Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending VERBOTEN: Sued Over "Sexually Hostile" Work Environment VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Violated Mass. Law, "Frazier" Suit Claims VISA INC: Judge Won't Halt "Liability Shift" Practices for Now VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Leonard" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olney" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL WABASHA COUNTY, WA: Intends to Defend "Safe Driving Class" Suit WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Product Misbranding WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Violated FLSA, "Amador" Suit Claims WHITE WAY: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yonjan" Suit Claims WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action YAHOO: E-mail Snooping Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK ********* A & M CONTRACTORS: "Leyva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santiago Leyva, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. A & M Contractors, Inc., Palmera Construction & Development, LLC, Mohammad Yousef, and Abdulhamid ("Abed") Dumani, Case No. 4:16-cv-00631 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at 11111 Richmond Avenue, Suite 242, Houston, Texas 77082. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com ABC CORP: "Vidal" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------- Esperanza Vidal, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. dba Roni's Laundromat dba Roni's Bright Laundromat, Jose Lucas, John Does and Jane Does Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00979, (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. ABC Corp. dba Roni's Laundromat dba Roni's Bright Laundromat owns and operates a recycling business in Queens, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, New York 11354 Tel: 718.353.8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com AIR & LIQUID: Faces "Walker" Injury Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- Jerry Lee Walker and Betty Walker, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. N16C-03-153 ASB (Del. Super., March 16, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully exposed to and inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers, an inherently dangerous toxic substance emanating from certain products which were manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed by the Defendants. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is engaged in the specification, mining, manufacturing, distribution, sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal, or use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The defendants are: Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., individually and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Buffalo Pumps; Amchem Products, Inc., n/k/a Rhone Poulenc AG Company, n/k/a Bayer Cropscience Inc.; Armstrong International, Inc.; Atwood & Morril Co., d/b/a Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc.; Aurora Pump Company; Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC; BW/IP Inc., as successor to Byron Jackson Pumps; Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems; CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest to The Bryant Electric Company; Copes- Vulcan Inc.; Crane Co.; Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, as successor to Felt Products Mfg. Co.; Flowserve U.S. Inc., individually and solely as successor to Durco Duriron, Anchor Darling, Superior Group, Edward Vogt, Vogt Valve, Inc., and Rockwell Manufacturing Company; FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump Company; Foster Wheeler LLC; Gardner Denver, Inc.; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goulds Pumps, Incorporated; Grinnell LLC; Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., as successor in interest to the Bendix Corporation; ITT Corporation; Jenkins Bros.; Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.; Navistar, Inc., d/b/a International Truck & Engine Corporation, f/k/a International Harvester, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Roper Pump Company; TDY Industries, Inc., f/k/a Teledyne Industries, Inc., individually and as successor of Farris Engineering; The Fairbanks Company; The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Union Carbide Corporation; Velan Valve Corporation; Viking Pump, Inc.; Warren Pumps, LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Dale Bowers, Esq. Kenneth L. Wan, Esq. William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A. 203 North Maryland Avenue Wilmington, DE 19804 Telephone: (302) 691-3786 Facsimile: (302) 691-3790 E-mail: dale@bowerslegal.com - and - Jason Yampolsky, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 Defense Coordinating Counsel is represented by: Rufo, Loreto P Rufo Associates PA 1252 Old Lancaster Pike Hockessin, DE 19707 Tel: (302) 234-5900 E-mail: lrufo@rufolaw.com ALL HARVEST: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. All Harvest Trading, LLC and Henry L. Chea, Case No. 4:16-cv-00634 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. All Harvest Trading, LLC owns and operates a seafood wholesale company located at 11100 S. Wilcrest Dr., Houston, TX 77099. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Siadek" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Siadek, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. BC607127, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01180 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. American Airlines, Inc. operates as a passenger and cargo air carrier. The Company also offers freight and mail services. The Company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Washington. As of December 31, 2015, the Company operated a fleet of 946 aircraft. The company was founded in 1934 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas. ANGEL'S I BAKERY: Fails to Pay Employees OT Wages, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elia Martinez, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. Angel's I Bakery, Inc., Mis Angelito's Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Angel's Bakery, and/or any other corporate entity doing business as Angel's Bakery located at 4003 5th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232, and Eduardo Rosales, and Josefina Camarillo, Case No. 1:16-cv-01202 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate Angel's Bakery located at 4003 5th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 61h Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Education Group, Inc. ("Apollo" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Apollo securities between June 26, 2013 and October 21, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Apollo securities during the Class Period, you have until May 13, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Apollo owns and operates several for-profit educational institutions throughout the United States. Its largest is the University of Phoenix, which the Company characterizes as "the nation's largest regionally accredited private university." The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) Apollo reported generating billions of dollars in revenues while concealing that a substantial portion of those revenues were being derived through improperly aggressive recruiting tactics being undertaken at U.S. military bases across the country that contradicted an Executive Order signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 27, 2012; (ii) Apollo's improperly aggressive recruiting tactics also allegedly violated the express terms of the contractual agreements the Company had entered into with the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD") in February 2012 and July 2014 to permit the University of Phoenix to continue to participate in the DoD's tuition assistance programs; (iii) the Defendants concealed that efforts to transition Apollo's online classroom platform to a new "industry-leading private cloud infrastructure, offering enhanced scalability, reliability and performance," were failing because, unbeknownst to investors, from its inception the new platform was not functioning as designed due to software compatibility problems that prevented students from signing onto their online courses, which had dramatically increased student drop-out rates; and (iv) Defendants hid from the investment community the deleterious impact the software compatibility problems were having not only on retention rates but on new student enrollment. As a result of Defendants' false statements, which emphasized Apollo's financial successes and strong financial prospects, the price of the Company's Class A common stock traded at artificially inflated levels, reaching a Class Period high of $35.92 per share in intraday trading on January 22, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. APPLUS VELOSI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Lacombe, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Applus Velosi America, LLC, Case No. 3:16- cv-00062 (S.D. Texas, March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Applus Velosi America, LLC provides vendor inspection, third party inspection, certification, testing and manpower services for the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDYHODGES,L.L.P. 711 W.Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - John Neuman, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES,L.L.P. 711 W.Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: jneuman@kennedyhodges.com BASTROP, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Brown" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Terrence Brown v. Cheron Nash, et al., Case No. 16-50129 (5th Cir.), is an appeal from a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin, in Case No. 1:15-CV-689. Mr. Brown is an inmate at a federal correctional institution in Bastrop, Texas. On behalf of all federal inmates similarly situated, Mr. Brown sued Cheron Nash, the warden at F.C.I. Bastrop; and Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General. Mr. Brown appears pro se. BEAR GLASS: Sued in New Jersey Over Communications Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bear Glass, Inc., Bear Glass New Jersey, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01349-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Communications Act. The Defendants own and operate a glass fabrication company in Brooklyn, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com BHP BILLITON: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP Billiton" or the "Company"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between September 25, 2014 and November 20, 2015, (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the April 26, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, click here to participate. In addition, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 708, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, the Company allegedly issued misleading statements concerning its implementation of safety precautions despite knowing the dangerous condition of the Samarco mine, a Brazilian mining operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale S.A. Goldberg Law PC -- http://www.Goldberglawpc.com-- represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. BUFFALO WILD WINGS: To Defend Against Employees' Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. intends to defend against a lawsuit by two former employees, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015. "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York state law against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York," the Company said. "The claim alleges that we have a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We believe a loss is reasonably possible, but we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of loss." Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and its wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries operate Buffalo Wild Wings(R), R Taco(TM), and PizzaRev(R) restaurants, as well as sell Buffalo Wild Wings and R Taco restaurant franchises. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Approval of "Marchese" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court decision on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case, Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, remains pending. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 7, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to approval by the Court. On December 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, conditional certification of the settlement class, and approval of a class notice distribution plan. A decision is pending. In the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded estimated charges associated with the settlement totaling $12,800,000, of which $9,500,000 is reflected in selling, general and administrative expense, and $3,300,000, representing the cost of benefits to class members that are reasonably expected to be provided, is reflected as a reduction to revenue, net. It is possible that the amount ultimately paid in connection with the settlement could exceed the amount recorded. Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United States based on the number of video customers. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Schedule Set for Summary Judgment Bids ----------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has approved a schedule for filing of summary judgment motions in the case, In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015. Expert discovery commenced on May 5, 2014, and concluded on December 8 and 28, 2015, when the Court ruled on the pending expert discovery motions. On January 26, 2016, the Court approved a schedule for filing of summary judgment motions. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United States based on the number of video customers. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Wandel" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in Arnold Wandel v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., has filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved. On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by approving the sale of the Company to Altice for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to preclude other potential acquirers from tendering superior proposals, and that Altice aided and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger, rescission of the Merger were it to close, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved on December 11, 2015. The Company believes this matter is now concluded. Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United States based on the number of video customers. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Gould" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in James R. Gould, Jr. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., has filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved. On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by, among other reasons, failing to properly value the Company and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Cablevision to its public stockholders in connection with the sale of the Company to Altice, and that Altice, Cablevision and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger, unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved on December 11, 2015. The Company believes this matter is now concluded. Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United States based on the number of video customers. CANADA: First Nations Wants Sixties Scoop Class Action Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Indigenous people who say they lost their cultural identity when they were removed as children from their homes on Ontario reserves to be placed with non-aboriginal families are urging the federal government to negotiate a settlement in a long-standing case that will go before a judge later this year. The class-action suit seeks redress for what the plaintiffs say was the government's failure to ensure that, after being taken from their communities by child-welfare authorities -- a wide- scale practice known as the Sixties Scoop -- the children were allowed to maintain their traditions and customs and to obtain the benefits that flow to aboriginal people, such as free postsecondary tuition. The case was launched in 2009 on behalf of Marcia Brown Martel, now the Chief of the Beaverhouse First Nation, who was taken from her community north of North Bay in 1967 when she was four years old and, after years in foster care, was adopted by a white family in central Ontario. Her lawyers estimate there are about 16,000 other indigenous people in the province who were removed from their homes in similar fashion between 1965 and 1984 -- the period covered by the claim. After seven years of delays, mostly as a result of appeals by Ottawa, the two sides will have a chance to present their arguments at a summary judgment hearing in the Ontario Superior Court on Aug. 23. Television ads will soon air on both the CBC and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network to advise other indigenous people who were part of the Sixties Scoop that they must opt out by April 22 if they don't want to be part of the case. The claim seeks combined damages of $100,000 for each person that is part of the class action. Similar suits have been launched in other provinces where the plaintiffs are waiting for the outcome of the Ontario case. "Canada, under the previous [Conservative] government, wouldn't sit down to talk with us. They were instructed 'no dialogue, no mediation, nothing,'" Jeffrey Wilson, the lawyer for Ms. Brown Martel and the other class-action claimants, said in a telephone interview on March 16. Mr. Wilson said he had hoped that the Liberal victory in the October election would lead to negotiations toward an out-of-court settlement. But, so far, he said, the new government has shown no interest in talks. The Indigenous Affairs Department suggested in an e-mail that the impasse may be about to end. "The government of Canada continues to prefer negotiation versus litigation," a department spokeswoman said. She pointed out that Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is examining all litigation on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it does not infringe upon aboriginal rights. "It would be premature, however, to speculate on how that review may impact claims concerning the Sixties Scoop," she said. While litigants in some other provinces argue that the government should not have removed aboriginal children from their communities and placed them with non-aboriginal families, the Ontario case does not. Instead, Mr. Wilson said, it asks "was there a duty, after they were placed, to provide access to them, to give them information to enable them to have access to their culture, if they so chose." Ms. Brown Martel, who was abandoned by her adopted family at the age of 17 and returned to a community to which she no longer had ties, said she grew up believing she was wanted by no one. "I was suicidal when I was 7 and I stayed that way until my early 20s," she said. The suit, Ms. Brown Martel said, was brought to ensure "that there would come a time in Canada when it would be against the law to remove children from their communities, forcing them to lose their language, their cultural identity, their traditions." CASHCALL INC: Consumer Loans Fraudulent, "Sinclair" Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Sinclair, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cashcall, Inc., WS Funding, LLC, Delbert Service Corporation, and John Paul Reddam, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00456-CAB, (N.D. Ohio, February 26, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief against Defendants arising from offering, funding, servicing and collecting on fraudulent and illegal consumer loans made to Ohio borrowers. CashCall is engaged in the business of offering, making, purchasing, servicing, and collecting on consumer loans. The case is assigned to Judge Christopher A. Boyko. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: (513) 621-2120 Fax: (513) 241-8259 Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES: Violated Wage Orders, "Vargas" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- David Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB, (C.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants employed and continue to employ Pick-Up and Delivery Drivers to whom Defendants as a class wide policy and practice failed to pay appropriate overtime pay, did not make statutory meal periods or rest breaks available or failed to pay an hour's pay in lieu thereof, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, and who were thus not paid all wages due consistent with California law. Plaintiff further contends Defendants' failure to comply with the California Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders is an unlawful business practice within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. The case is assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz. Plaintiff demands trial of his claims by jury to the extent authorized by law. CFL is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Waco, Texas. Within California CFL provides local pick-up and delivery services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Olsen, Esq. OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 550-9352 Fax: (619) 923-2747 Email: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leasehold Interests ------------------------------------------------------------ Don Beadles, In Trust For The Alva Synagogue Church, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, and John Does 1-50, Case No. 5:16-cv-00238-HE (W.D. Ok., March 10, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to rig bids and depress the amounts they paid to property owners for the acquisition of oil and gas leasehold interests and producing properties. The Defendants own and operate a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company in Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Carin L. Marcussen, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com clm@federmanlaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Pappas" Class Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. The case is captioned Allison Pappas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00612-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen B. Morris, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN B. MORRIS 444 West C Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1300 Facsimile: (619) 234-3672 E-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy El-Kallab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-00404-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 19, 2016) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency with headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri. The Company describes itself as an accounts receivable management firm that collects debt on behalf of businesses and organizations, including banks, utility companies, municipalities, county governments, private educational institutions, print publishers and medical providers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA 3900 First St. N, Suite 100 St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 327-3328 Facsimile: (727) 327-3305 E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com CLIFFS NATURAL: To Defend Vigorously Against Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- John Funk, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that investors who still own stock in Cleveland-based Cliffs Natural Resources face another round of bad news. Their stock lost more than 12 percent of value on March 15, closing at just $2.38 a share on the New York Stock Exchange, after two investors who previously bought unsecured bonds in the company filed a class action lawsuit. The complaint, filed in a federal court in New York, alleges that Cliffs, still the nation's larges iron ore mining company, gave big institutional bondholders and banks an opportunity to exchange their unsecured Cliffs notes for new unconditionally guaranteed notes that pay an 8 percent rate of interest and come due in 2020. The deal "created two classes of holders of Class Notes with very unequal rights," the suit alleges, adding that individual bondholders "were kept in the dark regarding the . . .[ details of the company's] exchange offer." What this means, says the suit, is that holders of the new notes would come first if the company had to choose whom to pay, for example in a bankruptcy proceeding. The exchange of the old notes for the new bonds has "impaired the Class members' [those holding the old notes] right to received payment of the principal and interest . . . and the right to institute suit to compel such payment," the suit argues. Cliffs on March 15 issued the following statement without further comment: "Cliffs typically does not comment on litigation matters. However, the company felt compelled to state its belief that this lawsuit over the note exchanges in January 2016 is entirely without merit. Cliffs fully intends to defend vigorously against the claims." The sell-off of Cliffs shares on March 15 came right on the heels of a 16 percent surge in the company's share price on March 14 on news that it would restart iron ore production in Minnesota by mid-May. The restart decision came after the Commerce Department said it would impose tariffs on imported steel. And the exchange deal itself helped push Cliffs' share price up in February because the point of the exchange was to reduce the company's debt as it weathers the global decline in steel making and demand for iron ore. In the past five years, the value of Cliffs' stock has fallen from about $100 a share in the spring of 2011 to $2.71 on March 14, before losing another 33 cents to close at $2.38 a share on March 15. COGENT COMMS: Discovery in "Ambrosio" to Continue Until December ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard Seeborg issued a Further Case Management Scheduling order in the case, AMBROSIO v. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 14-cv-02182-RS (N.D. Cal.). On or before December 2, 2016, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. Additionally, the parties shall meet and confer and submit to the Court a proposal regarding discovery limits on or before March 25, 2016. The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses shall proceed as follows: a. On or before September 30, 2016, parties will designate experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). b. On or before October 28, 2016, parties will designate their supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). c. On or before December 2, 2016, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed. A Further Case Management Conference shall be held on December 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement at least one week prior to the Conference. All dispositive pretrial motions shall be heard no later than March 2, 2017. The final pretrial conference will be held on May 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Each party or lead counsel who will try the case shall attend personally. A jury trial shall commence on May 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's March 17 Order is available at http://bit.ly/22t5UMKfrom Leagle.com. COM DEV USA: "Tom" Suit Alleges ERISA & FAA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Tom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Com Dev USA, LLC; Com Dev USA, LLC Employee Benefit Plans Committee; Com Dev USA Retirement Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01363, (C.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiff also seeks relief under ERISA and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 2, declaring that the arbitration agreement Plaintiff was required to sign violates ERISA and public policy, and is unconscionable and unenforceable. Defendant, Com Dev USA Retirement Plan, is an "employee pension benefit plan" and a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of ERISA Sections 3(2) and (35), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002(2) and (35), which was established and maintained for the purpose of providing retirement to employees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. Thomas E. Logan, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 995-6800 Fax: (213) 261-0299 Email: peter.stris@strismaher.com victor.oconnell@strismaher.com tom.logan@strismaher.com COMSCORE INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sommer" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Elliot Sommer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comscore, Inc., Serge Matta, and Melvin Wesley III, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01820 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Comscore provides data, metrics, products, and services to clients in the media, advertising, and marketing industries. The Company delivers digital media analytics that help content owners and advertisers understand and value the composition of consumer media audiences, and help marketers understand the performance and effectiveness of advertising targeted at these audiences. The Company's technology measures consumer interactions with digital media, including Web sites, apps, video programming, and advertising. On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC, disclosing that the Company would be unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 on time because the Company required additional time to prepare its financial statements and complete the external audit of those statements included in the Form 10-K. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682 5340 Facsimile: (212) 884 0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sheva Goldman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, d/b/a Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00851 (E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2016) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control, LLC was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CVS HEALTH: Defends Supplements Amid Memory-Enhancer Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that CVS continues to stand behind both its store brands and its efforts to comply with health and safety regulations in the wake of a class action lawsuit filed over a supplement the pharmacy chain manufactures and sells as a memory-enhancer. "Our store brands are designed to maximize quality and assure the products we offer for sale are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations and satisfy customers," said Michael DeAngelis, senior director for corporate communications at CVS Health. "As this matter involves pending litigation, we cannot comment specifically on the allegations within the complaint." The class action was filed Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Jeffrey Worth of New York and Robert Burns of Florida. They allege CVS violated the New York General Business Law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale of a supplement called Algal-900 DHA. CVS manufactures the product, which bears a label saying that it has been "clinically shown to improve memory." The lawsuit mentions that a 2014 article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a peer-reviewed journal, concluded that taking omega-3 fatty acids will not "promote cognitive function in terms of composite memory, executive function and (mental) processing speed domains." The medical journal's meta-analysis involved nearly 13,000 people spanning 34 studies. The lawsuit charges that CVS relied exclusively on a single discredited study by another supplement manufacturer to make the claim about memory enhancement. The Federal Trade Commission concluded that the study carried out by supplement manufacturer Martek Biosciences does not in fact affirm that products made from DHA -- an omega-3 fatty acid -- improve memory, the lawsuit contends. Angal-900 DHA contains a proprietary blend of ingredients, including high-oleic sunflower oil and sunflower lecithin. Attorney Richard Raskin -- rraskin@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago, whose practice has focused on health care litigation, said supplement manufacturers are, in general, more and more becoming targets for litigation. "Supplement makers are experiencing increasing scrutiny from regulators, prosecutors and class action lawyers," Mr. Raskin said. He emphasized, however, that the supplements companies can take steps to minimize their litigation risks, although he noted that trying to "fly under the radar" is not a legitimate way to assure compliance with regulations. "Some risks are inherent to the industry, but there is no question that supplement makers can take actions that will mitigate these risks," Mr. Raskin said. "In particular, it is critically important to build a strong compliance function that vets labeling and marketing claims and helps to ensure good manufacturing practices." One part of the CVS lawsuit criticized the company for making health claims on the front and back labels of its Algal-900 DHA product but only placing the standard disclaimer on the back side. Such disclaimers generally state, "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease." The plaintiffs and others in the class action seek damages, fees and other costs amounting to more than $5 million. DEJA VU: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Deja Vu of Saginaw, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10877-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Deja vu night clubs in Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Rachael E. Kohl, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, PC 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Facsimile: (248) 398-9804 DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Holmes, writing for CTV News, reports that a Winnipeg lawyer wants to put money back in drivers' pockets. Norman Boudreau launched a class action lawsuit against seven international auto parts manufacturers on March 10. "We're pleading that the auto part makers, and those are international auto part makers, have been conspiring to raise the price of the parts," Mr. Boudreau said. Mr. Boudreau filed the suit claiming seven of the world's leading automotive part manufacturers and their subsidiaries conspired to fix the price of parts. The suit claims those inflated prices were passed onto automobile manufacturers and eventually people who bought or leased vehicles between January 2000 and February 2010. It affects parts used in some of the most popular vehicles sold in Canada. No dollar figure is established yet for the class action. The suit has yet to be certified by the courts. "I anticipate it's going to be quite significant. These auto part makers have already been fined by the competition bureau, Canada Competition Bureau, over $50 million in Canada alone," Mr. Boudreau said. The 200 page document lists guilty pleas made in the United States by some of the companies listed in this suit. The guilty pleas resulted in billion dollar criminal fines for price-fixing and bid-rigging parts including starter motors, heater control panels and break hoses, amongst others. "This suit has been filed in British Columbia, now being filed in Manitoba, we anticipate it being filed across Canada as well," said Mr. Boudreau. For more information on the lawsuit, visit the Boudreau Law website. The defendants listed in the suit are: Denso Corporation, Denso Manufacturing Canada, Inc., Denso Sales Canada, Inc., Denso International America, Inc., Denso International Korea Corporation, Asmo Co., Ltd., Asmo North America, Llc, Asmo Manufacturing, Inc., Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (being successor in interest to Hitachi Cable, Ltd.), Hitachi Metals America, Llc (being successor in interest to Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.), Hitachi Cable America Inc., Hitachi America, Ltd. (D/B/A Hitachi Canada), Mitsuba Corporation, American Mitsuba Corporation, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S Wiring Systems, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.), Tokai Rika, Co. Ltd., Tram, Inc. D/B/A Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc., Yazaki Corporation, Yazaki North America, Inc., and Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd., And American Furukawa, Inc. DIRECT DIGITAL: Bid for Heightened Class Standard Review Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined a request for review by a company arguing in favor of a "heightened" standard for ascertaining class members in federal class actions. The nation's high court denied Direct Digital LLC's petition for a writ of certiorari, which was filed in October. The company, which makes Instaflex Joint Support, a product aimed at relieving joint discomfort, argued the case was an important one because of an existing circuit split. The question presented to the Supreme Court in Direct Digital LLC v. Mullins: "Whether a court may certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) where the plaintiff fails to make any showing of a reliable and administratively feasible means for ascertaining class membership." "Plaintiffs seek to certify classes whose claimed membership would be determined based on nothing more than a consumer's vague recollections," Direct Digital wrote in its petition. "In the absence of proof of purchase or other records showing who purchased what product and when, plaintiffs suggest that class membership can be established through self-identifying affidavits -- simple boilerplate recitations, untested by cross-examination, that claim a place in the class. And inevitably, of course, this method carries not only the risk of foggy memory, but can also tempt outright fraud. "If such claims were brought individually, a defendant would have a due process right to test whether the plaintiff actually purchased the defendant's product. That fundamental right cannot be compromised for the convenience of class plaintiffs and their counsel." The Supreme Court, in its Feb. 29 order list, did not provide an explanation for its decision, as is customary. However, Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February may have played a part in Mullins. The 79-year-old justice was found dead of natural causes at a luxury hunting resort in West Texas Feb. 13. He served on the high court for nearly 30 years and had a significant impact on the court's rulings in class action cases. As Michael R. Carroll-- carrollm@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at the New Jersey office of Ballard Spahr LLP, recently noted, in four cases with five-justice majorities, Justice Scalia wrote for a divided court that upheld contractual waivers of class arbitration; questioned class-wide damages models; and required a strict interpretation of what constitutes common questions of law and fact sufficient to maintain a class action under Rule 23. Rule 23 governs the procedure and conduct of class action suits brought in federal courts. Mr. Carroll said it may be that the remaining eight justices don't want to take up cases that are likely to closely divide the court until Scalia's replacement is confirmed. The White House confirmed that President Barack Obama plans to nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Obama planned to make his announcement March 16. In Mullins, plaintiff Vince Mullins sued Direct Digital for fraudulently representing that its product relieves joint discomfort. He alleges that statements on the Instaflex labels and marketing materials -- "relieve discomfort," "improve flexibility," "increase mobility," "support cartilage repair," "scientifically formulated" and "clinically tested for maximum effectiveness" -- are fraudulent because the primary ingredient in the supplement, glucosamine sulfate, is nothing more than a sugar pill and there is no scientific support for the claims. Mr. Mullins asserts that Direct Digital is liable for consumer fraud under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and similar consumer protection laws in nine other states. Mr. Mullins moved to certify a class of consumers "who purchased Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is disseminated." The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(3), in class action law, requires that judges not certify or authorize a class unless he or she finds that common issues of law or fact predominate. Direct Digital filed a petition for leave to appeal under Rule 23(f) arguing that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class without first finding that the class was "ascertainable." Direct Digital also argued that the district court erred by concluding that the efficacy of a health product can qualify as a "common" question under Rule 23(a)(2). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in its July 28 opinion, affirmed class certification, concluding that the company's ascertainability concerns are outweighed. Such a heightened ascertainability requirement "upsets the balance," the Seventh Circuit ruled. "In effect, it gives one factor in the balance absolute priority, with the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is often most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase," the panel wrote. Direct Digital argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the Seventh Circuit, in its ruling, didn't require Mullins to make any showing that the class could actually be ascertained in a feasible and reliable manner. "The court explicitly acknowledged the other circuits that would require such an ascertainability showing, but chose to reject their approach," the company wrote. "The Seventh Circuit's decision leaves Petitioner Direct Digital facing potentially huge damages from the certified class, with no assurances that it will ever be able to test whether any of the would-be class members actually purchased Instaflex. "The only winner, of course, is not the class members -- who stand to recover little, if they can be identified at all -- but class counsel -- who has now been handed extraordinary leverage to negotiate a settlement and its fee." DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Sutphen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., and Does 1-100 and each of them, Case No. 3:16-cv-00465-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2016) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., is a Coon Rapids, Minnesota company specializing in debt collection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: "Shipkovitz" Suit Removed to Dist. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Samuel Shipkovitz and others similarly situated v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Everhome Mortgage, Inc., Thomas J. Curry, Richard Cordray, Edith Ramirez, Case No. 413180V, was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland to the U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00712-The District Court Clerk assigned to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. operates a mortgage banking company located at 1 Corporate Dr # 360, Lake Zurich, IL 60047. Everhome Mortgage, Inc. operates a financial services company providing banking, mortgages, and investing services. Samuel Shipkovitz is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Michael Thomas Cantrell, Esq. MCCABE WEISBERG AND CONWAY PC 312 Marshall Ave Ste 800 Laurel, MD 20707 Telephone: (301) 490-3361 Facsimile: (301) 490-1568 E-mail: MdFederalEfilings@mwc-law.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cantamaglia" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cantamaglia, et al. v. DraftKings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06073, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10349 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Andrew Ferich, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19401 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: josephsauder@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com bfj@chimicles.com Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by: Franco A. Corrado, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by: Ira N. Richards, Esq. TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS LLC 226 W. Rittenhouse Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 731-9004 Facsimile: (215) 731-9044 E-mail: IRichards@trrlaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jamie Facenda v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08922, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv- 10337-GAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 92101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com The Defendant is represented by: James P. Fogelman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7234 E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hale" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Hale v. DraftKings Inc, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01879, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv- 10339-GAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@rcrsd.com kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net - and - Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC. 620 Newport Center Drive, Seventh Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@rcrlaw.net - and - Michael I. Katz, Esq. Wayne R. Gross, Esq. GREENBERG GROSS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 383-2800 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801 E-mail: mkatz@ggtriallaw.com wgross@ggtriallaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hemrich" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Hemrich, et al. v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00445, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10351 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 735-8100 Facsimile: (314) 735-8020 E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com aj@bruninglegal.com - and - Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: James P. Fogelman, Esq. Timothy W. Loose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7234 Facsimile: (213) 229-6234 E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com tloose@gibsondunn.com - and - Austin Schwing, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com - and - Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr., Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-6160 Facsimile: (314) 241-6116 E-mail: TJM@heplerbroom.com - and - W. Jason Rankin, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC 130 North Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-1138 Facsimile: (618) 656-1364 E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hodge" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hodge v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03951, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10334-GAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hood, Esq. Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com taylor@hgdlawfirm.com wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com - and - James F. McDonough, III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0869 Facsimile: (205) 380-8076 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Chad Lennon, Esq. Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP 1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4168 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: lennon@bmelaw.com lowrey@bmelaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Huizar v. DraftKings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09956, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv- 10338-GAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md- 02677-GAO. The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling and bonus fraud. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. The Company was founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Leimbach, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by: James P. Fogelman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7234 E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com EMCOR GROUP: Subsidiary Settles "Vasquez" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that its subsidiary, USM, Inc., has settled the class action lawsuit by Federico Vilchiz Vasquez et al. "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), were co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by six employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors," the Company said. The action captioned Federico Vilchiz Vasquez, Jesus Vilchiz Vasquez, Francisco Domingo Claudio, for themselves and all others similarly situated vs. USM, Inc. dba USM Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees alleged in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor when it knew or should have known that the contract did not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial subcontractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees asserted that the amounts USM paid to its janitorial subcontractors were insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees sought to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four-year time period. "We do not believe USM or the Customer violated the California statute or that the employees could have brought the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer," the Company said. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that USM had violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. USM and its Customer have settled the claims asserted in the class action pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by the federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 16, 2016, which followed a determination by the Court of the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and reasonableness. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM will: (a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.2 million has been allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and $1.1 million has been allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c) monitor USM's California subcontractors providing janitorial services to its Customer in accordance with agreed upon procedures designed principally to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no less than minimum wage. EMCOR is an electrical and mechanical construction and facilities services firm. EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Maintenance Failure, "Sofia" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Sanchez, the Plaintiff, v. Evolution Hospitality, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CIV537713 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover costs of suit, just and equitable relief including compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently owned, operated, inspected, failed to inspect, maintained, managed, or otherwise controlled property at the Marriott Hotel, located at 1770 S Amphlette Blvd, in the city and county of San Mateo, State of California. Evolution Hospitality operates hotels. It offers rooms and suites, a meeting/event space, a restaurant, a rooftop pool, a spa, and bars. The Company was formerly known as Tarsadia Hotels, Inc., and was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Laskin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. LASKIN 1810 S Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 329 9010 Facsimile: (916) 442 0444 E-mail: LASKIN@LASKINLAW.COM FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Wesley Kenney, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-ES-JAD (D.N.J., March 10, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC is a law firm located at 165 Passaic Ave #301b, Fairfield, NJ 07004. LVNV Funding, LLC is a collection agency that works for creditors to collect on charged-off debt accounts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com FIFTH THIRD: Settles Stock-Drop Class Action for $6 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Knaub and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that Fifth Third Bancorp will pay $6 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by employees claiming the company's retirement plan lost tens of millions of dollars by investing in the financial services firm's own stock in 2007 despite its risky subprime lending, according to a filing in Ohio federal court on March 15. Under the terms of the deal, the Cincinnati, Ohio-based company will freeze its stock fund and prohibit new 401(k) plan participants from investing in it, continue its current practice of matching contributions in cash rather than in stock for at least eight years, and disseminate a yearly notice to plan participants who have invested more than 20 percent of their accounts in stock regarding the benefits of asset allocation and diversification, among other things. Each class member will receive a share of the $6 million, which will be distributed directly to their retirement accounts, according to their memorandum. Participants in Fifth Third's 401(k) savings plan asked Ohio's Southern District to approve the agreement. "The certain and immediate benefits to the class as a result of the settlement outweigh the possibility of obtaining a better result at trial, particularly when factoring in the additional expense and long delay inherent in prosecuting this complex litigation through trial and appeal," the employees said in the filing. The workers -- who contended the plan's fiduciaries, including bank CEO Kevin Kabat, had violated their duty to protect participants from needless losses amid the company's 74 percent stock drop from July 2007 to September 2009 -- said the "hard- fought" deal is an excellent result for the class and resolves all claims in the case, which wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The parties reached their agreement while the action, former worker John Dudenhoeffer's Employee Retirement Income Security Act stock-drop suit, was pending before the Sixth Circuit, where the high court had remanded it, according to the brief. The deal, under which Fifth Third admits no liability, also provides for the payment of attorneys' fees, not to exceed one third of the settlement fund, as well as case contribution awards for named plaintiffs, according to court documents. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling challenged by Fifth Third that said fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans were entitled to a presumption they had acted prudently but declined to apply it at the pleading stage. Fifth Third had argued in favor of the defense-friendly presumption that the decision to invest in employer stock was reasonable, but the high court declared that "no such presumption applies." Fifth Third's petition for Supreme Court review came after the three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reversed an Ohio federal court's decision dismissing the case, finding that the employees had made a plausible claim that the plan's fiduciaries, including bank CEO Kabat, had breached their duty to protect participants from needless losses in the staggering stock drop. The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Sixth Circuit for the appeals court to consider whether the complaint was up to snuff under the pleading standards laid out in prior high court cases, during which time the parties settled the case. An attorney for Fifth Third declined to comment. An attorney for plaintiffs did not respond on March 16 to a request for comment. Fifth Third is represented by James E. Burke -- jburke@kmklaw.com -- of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. The plaintiffs are represented by Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- and Julie Siebert-Johnson of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- and Gregory M. Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston; Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Law LLC; and Ronald R. Parry -- rrparry@strausstroy.com -- of Strauss Troy. The case is John Dudenhoeffer et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp, case number 08-cv-538, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division. FIRSTMERIT CORP: "Wojno" Suit Seeks to Block Huntington Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary H. Wojno, in her capacity as the trustee of the Mary h. Wojno Revocable Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FirstMerit Corporation, Huntington Bancshares, Inc., West Subsidiary Corporation, Paul G. Grieg, John C. Blickle, Phillip A. Lloyd, II, Terry L. Haines, R. Cary Blair, Karen S. Belden, Robert W. Briggs, Richard Colella, Gina D. France, J. Michael Hochschwender, Steven H. Baer, Russ M. Strobel, Lizabeth A. Ardisana, Robert S. Cubbin, Defendants, Case No. 5:16- cv-00461, (N.D. Ohio, February 26, 2016), seeks to enjoin the merger of the Company and Huntington Bancshares, Inc., with Huntington as the surviving entity. The lawsuit contends that the Proposed Transaction is the result of a flawed and unfair process marred by conflicts of interest, not the least of which is that the Company's Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer and several of the Company's directors stand to make millions in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Meanwhile, the same Individual Defendants will be able to cash out or convert otherwise illiquid blocks of stock, and four members of the Board will become members of the Huntington board of directors. The case is assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson. FirstMerit is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio with its principal executive offices located at III Cascade Plaza, Akron, Ohio 44308. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris T. Nolan, Esq. PERANTINIDES & NOLAN CO., L.P.A. 300 Courtyard Square 80 South Summit Street Akron, OH 44308-1736 Tel: (330) 253-5454 Fax: (330) 253-6524 Email: cnolan@perantinides.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Tel: (504) 455-1400 Fax: (504) 455-1498 Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com Christopher.Tillotson@ksfcounsel.com GARDEN CITY, KS: "Market" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Jada J. Market, individually, and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Garden City, City of Kansas, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01053-JTM-JPO, (D. Kan., February 26, 2016), allege civil rights violation. The case is assigned to Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten and Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara for all proceedings. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall K. Rathbun, Esq. DEPEW GILLEN RATHBUN & McINTEER, LC 8301 East 21st Street North, Suite 450 Wichita, KS 67206-2936 Tel: (316) 262-4000 ext 108 Fax: (316) 265-3819 E-mail: randy@depewgillen.com GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Punitive Damages in Ignition Switch Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sudhin Thanawala, writing for The Associated Press, reports that hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and fines over unintended acceleration in Toyotas and faulty ignition switches in General Motors' vehicles provide a glimpse of what consumers and the government might get from Volkswagen for cheating on diesel emissions, legal scholars say. But the Volkswagen case comes with a wild card that could significantly drive up damages: The company's admission in September that it intentionally defeated emissions tests and put dirty vehicles on the road. "It was fraudulent deception, and that makes the case susceptible to a very substantial punitive damage award," said Robert Rabin, a professor at Stanford Law School and expert in product defect cases. A more immediate concern for Volkswagen may be how to bring nearly 600,000 diesel cars polluting U.S. roads into compliance with emissions standards. A federal judge last month gave the company until March 24 to report back on whether it has come up with an engineering fix. "It seems to me six months is long enough to determine whether or not there is an engineering process that can be utilized by Volkswagen and would be acceptable to the United States government," Senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer said. But even with a fix, the company still faces lawsuits by angry Volkswagen owners and the Department of Justice. The owners were duped into buying the vehicles with promises that they were high- performing and fuel efficient yet still environmentally friendly, attorneys for hundreds of owners said in a consolidated complaint filed in February. The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all owners of affected vehicles across the country and demands that Volkswagen buy the vehicles back. The DOJ is asking for civil penalties that could exceed $18 billion. Both cases are before Judge Breyer after a judicial panel decided to consolidate suits against the car company in San Francisco in part because there are so many Volkswagen dealers and owners in California. Volkswagen and its executives could also face separate criminal charges. "VW in my mind is a numbers game. The only question is how much they pay, not whether they'll pay," said Morris Ratner, a former plaintiffs' attorney who teaches at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Ratner once was a partner at the law firm handling the consolidated Volkswagen complaint, but is no longer associated with it. Mr. Ratner cautioned that Volkswagen owners may not get the full vehicle refund they are looking for, pointing to the Toyota unintended acceleration case as an example. Toyota reached a $1 billion-plus settlement with owners who complained their vehicles lost value. The settlement included a provision to outfit vehicles with brake override systems to ensure they stop when brakes are applied, even if the accelerator pedal is pressed. But owners who were not eligible for or did not get the brake override could receive no more than $125, according to a website set up to advise people about the settlement. GM paid nearly $600 million to settle more than 350 claims that its ignition switch defect led to crashes. The defect caused 124 deaths and 275 injuries as of August 2015, according to attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who administered claims against GM. If there is no way to fix Volkswagen vehicles, the court may require the company to refund owners the difference between what they were told they were buying and what they received, said Gregory Keating, a University of Southern California law professor who specializes in consumer fraud cases. If there is a fix that makes the vehicles compliant with air regulations but compromises fuel economy or performance, the court may require compensation for the greater expense of operating the cars in addition to their loss in value, he said. But experts say the Volkswagen litigation is different from the Toyota and GM cases in that Volkswagen's fraud is clearer and more egregious. As part of criminal settlements with the DOJ, Toyota and GM acknowledged that they misled consumers after defects were discovered. Volkswagen deliberately programmed cars to turn on pollution controls during Environmental Protection Agency treadmill tests and turn them off when the cars were on the road. "As a practical matter, thinking from the perspective of potential jurors, the active trickery looks much worse," Mr. Ratner said. Toyota agreed to pay a $1.2 billion penalty. GM agreed to a $900 million penalty. Volkswagen says it has set aside more than $7 billion to pay fines, recall costs and legal settlements. GFC LENDING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Violations of EFTA -------------------------------------------------------------- Rene Anderson and Shercol Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GFC Lending LLC d/b/a Go Financial, Case No. 2:16-cv-00463-ESW (D. Ariz., February 19, 2016) alleges violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. GFC Lending, LLC, doing business as GO Financial, provides subprime auto finance products to dealers in the United States. The Company was incorporated in 2011 and is based in Mesa, Arizona. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Suite D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 565-1327 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Layne" Suit Over Zofran Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------ Brenden Layne, Individually, and Kaylyn Miller, as Parents and Natural Guardian of P.L., A Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10340 (D. Mass., February 19, 2016) is brought for damages arising from the alleged injuries to P.L. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron. Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients. GlaxoSmithKline marketed Zofran "off label" as a safe and effective treatment for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, commonly called "morning sickness." GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware limited liability company. GSK's sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, and which has identified its principal place of business as Wilmington, Delaware. GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug Application for Zofran. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Cagle, Esq. THE CAGLE LAW FIRM, P.C. 5300 Bee Cave Road Building 1, Suite 240 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 371-6101 Facsimile: (512) 597-3132 E-mail: ccagle@caglefirm.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "McClellan" Suit Over Zofran(R) ---------------------------------------------------------- Tara McClellan and Jose Jimenez, individually and on behalf of their daughter, T.J., a minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 1:16-cv-10502 (D. Mass., March 10, 2016), is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to T.J. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron. Zofran(R) is a prescription drug that is used to treat severe nausea as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients. GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter J. Lack, Esq. Elizabeth L. Crooke Brian D. Depew, Esq. Ann A. Howitt, Esq. ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK PC 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113 Telephone: (310) 552-3800 Facsimile: (310) 552-9434 E-mail: bcrooke@elllaw.com bdepew@elllaw.com ahowitt@elllaw.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Sumrall" Suit Over Use of Zofran ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Sumrall, individually and on behalf of C.S., her minor child, Plaintiffs, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16- cv-10412, (D. Mass., February 26, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to C.S. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron. As a direct and proximate result of GSK's conduct, Plaintiff Jennifer Sumrall and her child C.S. have suffered and incurred harm including severe and permanent pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses and other economic and noneconomic damages, and will require more constant and continuous medical monitoring and treatment than had they not been exposed to Zofran. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug Application ("NDA") for Zofran. Glaxo, Inc., through its division Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, authored the original package insert and labeling for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use. Glaxo Wellcome Inc. sponsored additional NDAs for Zofran, monitored and evaluated post-market adverse event reports arising from Zofran, and authored product labeling for Zofran. The term GSK used herein refers to GSK, its predecessors Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Welcome Inc., and other GSK predecessors and/or affiliates that The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. McCauley, Esq. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, New York 11050 Tel: (516) 466-6500 Fax: (516) 466-6665 Email: mmccauley@yourlawyer.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: "Munoz" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Beatriz Munoz, and other similarly situated non-exempt store managers, Plaintiff, v. Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., and Joseph P. Lacher, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20716-MGC, (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was originally filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Case No. 16-001797-CA01, and removed to federal district court on Feb. 26, 2016. The case is assigned to Judge Marcia G. Cooke and U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com - and - Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Susan Potter Norton, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 445-7801 E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com GRAPA LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Coleman" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Coleman v. Grapa, L.L.C. and its subsidiary Vinology Wine Bar of Ann Arbor, Case No. 2:16-cv-10878-LJM-MKM (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 110 Main Street, Arbor, MI 48104. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Rachael E. Kohl, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, PC 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Facsimile: (248) 398-9804 - and - Kevin Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com HBLC: Appeals Court Reverses FDCPA Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a man who claimed someone had fraudulently run up more than $2,500 in debt on a credit card opened in his name without his knowledge has secured another chance to press a lawsuit against a suburban debt collection agency, after a state appeals panel found the agency may have broken federal debt collection laws by suing the man over the contested debt after the statute of limitations had expired. On March 4, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled in favor of Danny Egan, saying a lower court had erred in dismissing his countersuit against debt collection company HBLC over his claims HBLC should be held to account for waiting too long to bring their debt collection action against him. The appellate opinion was authored by Justice Robert E. Gordon, with concurrence from Justice Jesse Reyes and Justice Bertina E. Lampkin. More than four years ago, HBLC filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Mr. Egan, alleging he failed to make payments on a Credit One Bank credit card account, owing $2,545, plus accumulating interest and legal fees. Mr. Egan replied he had not opened the account, but rather, someone had hijacked his personal information and fraudulently opened and used the account. Mr. Egan lodged a class-action counter-complaint, alleging HBLC and its Chicago attorney, Steven J. Fink, disregarded the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Illinois Collection Agency Act by suing him in January 2012, even though they were aware the five-year statute of limitations had expired. Egan claimed the five years began running with the last activity on the account, which was in September 2006. Mr. Egan said HBLC and Mr. Fink filed more than 1,000 consumer debt collection suits between 2011 and 2012 in Cook County Circuit Court. HBLC is based in northwest suburban Cary. Mr. Egan alleged HBLC and Fink used "unfair and deceptive means" to collect the debt by misrepresenting to Mr. Egan he had to pay the debt, although he was not obliged to do so, because of the statute of limitations. HBLC and Fink then filed a motion to toss Mr. Egan's counter-suit, which Cook County Judge Kathleen Kennedy granted in 2014. Egan then appealed. The issue before the appellate court was whether HBLC and Fink breached the FDCPA by knowing the statute of limitations had expired, but going ahead and filing the suit. The appellate court found that, although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the question, numerous federal courts have done so. One of these rulings came in 2013 from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling quoted from a 1987 Alabama federal district decision, which in turn the Illinois First Appellate Court quoted. "Few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of limitations could be used to defend against lawsuits based on stale debts, such consumers would unwittingly acquiesce to such lawsuits. And, even if the consumer realizes that she can use time as a defense, she will more than likely still give in rather than fight the lawsuit because she must still expend energy and resources," the Alabama district court observed. The appellate court said it was satisfied prior rulings established that a time-barred debt collection suit could violate the FDCPA. With that understanding in mind, the appellate court addressed defendants' contention no violation occurred, because there were no misrepresentations in the suit itself. The appellate justices were not moved, pointing to rulings from other courts, especially the nation's high court, which said earlier this year, "The suggestion that the 'mere filing of a lawsuit' cannot be abusive is either naive or disingenuous." The appellate court went on to say, in its own words, "The knowing filing of a time-barred lawsuit would be improper where, as here, HBLC and Fink have not attempted to argue that there is a reason why their claim is still viable." As a result of these determinations, the appellate court reversed the circuit court's dismissal, bringing Egan's case back to life. Mr. Egan is represented by the firm of Keogh Law, of Chicago. HBLC and Mr. Fink are represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago. HENRY HALL: Removes "Knight" Suit to Middle District of Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Knight v. Henry J. Hall DVM PC, et al., Case No. SC16CV24, was removed from the State Court of Muscogee County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Columbus). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00027-CDL to the proceeding. Henry J. Hall DVM PC provides veterinary services in Columbus, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Lynn Champion, Esq. 5353 Veterans Pkwy., Suite A Columbus, GA 31904 Telephone: (706) 323-5353 Facsimile: (706) 323-0600 E-mail: heather@hlchampionlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: William L. Tucker, Esq. PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C. P.O. Box 1199 Columbus, GA 31902-1199 Telephone: (706) 324-0251 Facsimile: (706) 596-9992 E-mail: wlt@psstf.com - and - Julie E. Dorchak, Esq. PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C. 1111 Bay Ave., Third Floor Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 256-5304 Facsimile: (706) 323-7519 E-mail: jed@psstf.com - and - Samuel W. Oates, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 20 Columbus, GA 31902 Telephone: (706) 327-8000 E-mail: samoatesjr@aol.com HERMES OF PARIS: "Chaney" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Pay Under NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ewern Chaney and Winifred Hu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hermes Of Paris, Inc., Robert B. Chavez, Maureen Baltazar, Barbra Katz, Susan Dicecco, Kelly Schoeler Elliot and Pana Diamantopoulos, the Defendants, Case No. 651279/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New York - Commercial Division, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unlawful deduction from wages and commissions, for uniform violations, failure to pay overtime and for other statutory penalties under the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Hermes is a manufacturer and retailer of high-end leather, lifestyle accessories, perfumery and other luxury goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Roth, Esq. Jordan M. Kam, Esq. THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC 295 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 542 8882 E- mail: rich@rrothlaw.com jkam@rrothlaw.com - and - Tisha Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TISHA JACKSON 1115 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 710 2651 E-mail: jacksonlawnyc@gmail.com HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over Online Portal's Pricing Tactics ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tnooz reports that a vacation rental property owner has filed a class action lawsuit against HomeAway over the online portal's pricing tactics, after the company changed its fees and policies in February. In the case, owner Ivan Arnold of the Los Angeles-area says he has been a customer of the Austin-based company since 2013. (He rents out a home in Palm Springs to offset the cost of ownership.) Arnold says he entered into his current year-long subscription contract of $1,848 without him and other consumers being made aware of coming fee changes. The suit alleges that tens of thousands of consumers experienced a loss because they might have otherwise purchased a cheaper service from HomeAway or a rival vacation rental marketplace if they had been aware of the fee changes in advance. It claims that owners face lost bookings because HomeAway's new service fee to travelers has led to owners receiving fewer bookings than they would have received otherwise. For years, HomeAway's brands have charged yearly subscription fees for the right to list homes for rent. That policy changed in February, when the company, recently acquired by Expedia Inc, rolled out new service fees to travelers, which range from 4% to 10% of the price of the rental. Uncertain path Unlike other suits, class actions in the US need a judge to certify them before they can go ahead. The bar for being certified is typically high. So it is uncertain if HomeAway will actually face this class action in court. Since 2011, it's been allowed for companies to add language to their terms of service that thwart most class actions. It's unclear if this is the case for HomeAway's agreements. Austin-based litigators Fritz, Byrne, Head & Fitzpatrick filed the suit on Arnold's behalf. The suit says: "The contracts that Plaintiff and other owners entered into with HomeAway specified that the charges in effect at the time Plaintiff and other owners entered into their subscription agreements with HomeAway would govern throughout the term of those agreements (i.e., for one year). To quote: "For subscription listings, the rates in effect at the time of the member's next subscription renewal, new listing or a member's upgrade or any other additional or new order of any product or service will govern for such renewal or other order." Meaning that, since the charges in effect at the time Plaintiff and other owners entered into their subscription agreements did not include fees to travelers, HomeAway was contractually prohibited from charging fees to travelers during the year those contracts were in effect." The suit makes much of statements made by HomeAway CEO Brian Sharples allegedly saying, "We will also by the way continue to be free for travelers." The suit also makes much of a recently resurfaced video of Sharples speaking at a gathering of VBRO owners.) The context of the Sharples quote was: "We are going to be free to travelers. TripAdvisor and Airbnb have chosen to charge big fees to travelers. Well, we're going to have a pretty sizeable marketing budget in the next few years. And we're going to be letting everybody know, when you come to our platform and you don't pay a fee and we think that's a big deal." It remains unclear if owners who want pro-rated refunds of their subscriptions due to the policy change can receive ones. The company's terms of service around refund requests leaves that vague, saying "Generally, no refunds are available unless a member qualifies for a refund under any guarantee program we may have in effect." HomeAway did not return a request for comment on a few hours' deadline notice. But we will update this story if we hear from the company. HOME COUNTY: Faces "Arias" Class Suit in California Superior Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Home County Pizza Inc. and Hishmeh Enterprises Inc. The case is captioned Camille Arias an individual on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former employees v. Home County Pizza Inc. and Hishmeh Enterprises Inc., Case No. 56- 2016-00479208-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. ct., March 13, 2016). The Defendants own and operate franchised Domino's Pizza in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 E-mail: info@soloukisavoy.com HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $625M in Claims Pending in "Jaffe" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that there is approximately $625 million in remaining claims, prior to the imposition of pre- judgement interest, that are still subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the Illinois District Court in the case, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International, Inc. ('Household International') and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., filed in August 2002 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the 'Illinois District Court'). The complaint asserted claims under the US Securities Exchange Act and alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household International's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the financial restatement. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 1999 and October 2002. A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict were raised in post-trial briefing. In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class members, the court-appointed claims administrator reported to the Illinois District Court that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of those claims was approximately $2.2 billion. The Illinois District Court directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address certain issues and objections regarding the remaining claims. In October 2013, the Illinois District Court entered a partial final judgement against the defendants in the amount of approximately $2.5 billion (including pre-judgement interest). The defendants appealed that partial final judgement. In addition to the partial judgement that has been entered, there are also approximately $625 million in remaining claims, prior to the imposition of pre-judgement interest, that are still subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the Illinois District Court. In May 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing the partial final judgement of the Illinois District Court and remanding the case for a new trial on loss causation, which may entail a reassessment of the quantum of damages. On remand to the Illinois District Court, the case was reassigned to a different judge, who has issued various rulings on certain preliminary issues and has entered a scheduling order that includes a trial date in June 2016. HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules on Admission of Experts ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 02 C 5893 (N.D. Ill.), District Judge Jorge L. Alonso denied three motions: (1) plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendants from substituting experts; (2) plaintiffs' motion to strike the rebuttal reports of defendants' experts; and (3) defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Professor Fischel. A copy of the Court's February 1, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/hqAzfdfrom Leagle.com. Phillip S. Stenger, Special Master, represented by: Kay Griffith Hammond, Esq. Laura Dawn Duston, Esq. Stenger & Stenger PC 2618 East Paris Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Tel: 616-940-1190 888-305-7775 Fax: 616-940-1192 Lawrence E Jaffe, Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by: Gary L. Specks, Esq. Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (800) 290-1952 (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com gspecks@kaplanfox.com Glickenhaus Institutional Group, Glickenhaus Inst Grp, Plaintiff, represented by Spencer A Burkholz -- spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Azra Z Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm, PC, Daniel S. Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Cameron Baker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jason C. Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Keith F. Park -- keithp@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Luke O Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marvin Alan Miller -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, Maureen E. Mueller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Patrick J Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins. Household International Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer -- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Andrew J Fuchs -- andrew.fuchs@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Christine M. Johnson -- andrew.fuchs@skadden.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Craig S. Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Dane H. Butswinkas -- dbutswinkas@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, David R. Owen -- dowen@cahill.com -- Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Donna L. McDevitt -- donna.mcdevitt@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, Jason M. Hall -- jhall@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason A. Otto -- jotto@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt -- jgreenblatt@cahill.com -- Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Joshua M. Newville -- jnewville@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Kim Smith, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Landis C Best, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Lauren Perlgut, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Leslie Cooper Mahaffey, Williams & Connolly Llp, Luke DeGrand, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C., Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Michael Wernke, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Patricia Farren, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Patrick Joseph Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Paul Millen, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Scott Watnik, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly LLP, Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Thomas J Kavaler, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Tracey L. Wolfe, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C. & Yafit Cohn, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P., Defendant, represented by Stanley J. Parzen -- sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Christine M. Johnson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Debra L Bogo-Ernst -- dernst@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Jason M. Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Mark Douglas Brookstein -- mbrookstein@gouldratner.com -- Gould & Ratner, Marshall J. Hartman, Patricia Farren, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr -- PVizcarrondo@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Sheila Marie Finnegan, Mayer Brown LLP. It is also represented by: Eric S. Palles, Esq. Gary Jay Ravitz, Esq. Ravitz & Palles, P.C. 203 N LaSalle Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312)558-1689 W F Aldinger, Defendant, represented by Gil M. Soffer -- gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Christine M. Johnson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Craig S. Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, David R. Owen, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Dawn Marie Canty, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, Jason M. Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Joshua M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Landis C Best, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Thomas J Kavaler, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel. Gary Gilmer, Defendant, represented by David S. Rosenbloom -- DRosenbloom@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Caitlin Maeve Kendall, Mcdermott Will & Emery, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, John Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Paul D. Clement -- pclement@bancroftpllc.com -- Bancroft PLLC & Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. D A Schoenholz, Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Tim S. Leonard, Jackson Walker L.l.p., Christine M. Johnson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Craig S. Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, David R. Owen, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, Jason M. Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Joshua M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Landis C Best, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Stewart Theodore Kusper, Kusper Law Group Ltd, Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Thomas J Kavaler, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel. Carl A. LaSusa, Respondent, represented by Craig Allen Varga -- cvarga@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C.. Wells Fargo & Company, Respondent, represented by George Robert Dougherty -- gdougherty@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, John F. Kloecker -- kloecker@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Sally Weiss Mimms, Locke Lord LLP & Robert Lee Schnell, Jr., Faegre & Benson. State of Vermont, Movant, represented by Brudget C. Asay. HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Madoff Investors Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on HSBC's motion to dismiss a class action by investors in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. In December 2014, three actions were filed in the US. The first is a purported class action brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'New York District Court') by direct investors in Madoff Securities who were holding their investments as of December 2008, asserting various common law claims and seeking to recover damages lost to Madoff Securities' fraud on account of HSBC's purported knowledge and alleged furtherance of the fraud. HSBC moved to dismiss this action in November 2015 and a decision on that motion is pending. The other two actions were both filed by SPV Optimal SUS Ltd ('SPV OSUS'), the purported assignee of the Madoff-invested company, Optimal Strategic US Equity Ltd. One of these actions was filed in New York state court and the other in New York District Court. In January 2015, SPV OSUS dismissed its federal lawsuit against HSBC. The state court action against HSBC remains pending. HSBC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuit in Ontario by persons who purchased HSCB common shares. In July 2014, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against HSBC Holdings and a former employee purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased HSBC common shares and American Depositary Shares between July 2006 and July 2012. The complaint, which seeks monetary damages of up to CA$20 billion, alleges that the defendants made statutory and common law misrepresentations in documents released by HSBC Holdings and its wholly owned subsidiary, HSBC Bank Canada, relating to HSBC's compliance with US Bank Secrecy Act (the 'BSA'), anti-money laundering ('AML') rules, sanctions and other laws. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Iraq Terror Victims Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on the motion to dismiss a New York lawsuit by representatives of US persons killed or injured in Iraq. In November 2014, a complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in Iraq between April 2004 and November 2011. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank Middle East, as well as other non-HSBC banks and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act ('US ATA') by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the US. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in May 2015, and a decision on that motion is pending. * * * HSBC Holdings plc also said in its Form 20-F Report that a complaint was filed in November 2015 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of representatives of four US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan in 2005. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HNAH, HSI, HSBC Finance, HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Bank Middle East, as well as a non-HSBC bank. The plaintiffs allege that the HSBC defendants violated the US ATA by failing to enforce due diligence methods to prevent its financial services from being used to support the terrorist attacks. HSBC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Deaths Due to Mexican Drug Cartels ----------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed in February 2016 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas by representatives of US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC M‚xico SA, and Grupo Financiero HSBC. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act ('US ATA') by providing financial services to individuals and entities associated with the Mexican drug cartels. Defendants have not yet been served with process. HSBC HOLDINGS: CALSTRS's 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by the California State Teachers Retirement System to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remains pending. HSBC and other panel banks have been named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in financial instruments allegedly related to the euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ('Tibor') and/or Japanese yen Libor. The complaints allege, amongst other things, misconduct related to euroyen Tibor, although HSBC is not a member of the Japanese Bankers Association's euroyen Tibor panel, as well as Japanese yen Libor, in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. The first of the two actions was filed in April 2012, and HSBC responded by filing a motion to dismiss. In March 2014, the New York District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under US antitrust law and state law, but sustained their claims under the CEA. In June 2014, the plaintiffs then moved for leave to file an amended complaint adding new claims and parties. That motion was denied in March 2015, except insofar as it granted leave to add certain defendants not affiliated with HSBC and reserving on the question of whether the California State Teachers Retirement System ('CALSTRS') may intervene and be added as a plaintiff. In October 2015, the New York District Court denied the motion of CALSTRS to intervene. In November 2015, CALSTRS filed an appeal of that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which remains pending. The second action was filed in July 2015. In February 2016, HSBC and the other banks named in the complaint filed a motion to dismiss the action, and a decision on that motion is pending. HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Euribor Suit in N.Y. Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action related to Euro futures contracts remains pending. In November 2013, HSBC and other panel banks were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in euro futures contracts and other financial instruments allegedly related to Euribor. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to Euribor in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. The court previously stayed proceedings until May 2015. After the stay expired, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In October 2015, HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the action, which remains pending. HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss ISDAfix Rates Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a class action related to ISDAfix rates remains pending. In September and October 2014, HSBC Bank plc and other panel banks were named as defendants in a number of putative class actions that were filed and consolidated in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in interest rate derivatives or purchased or sold financial instruments that were either tied to US dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association fix ('ISDAfix') rates or were executed shortly before, during, or after the time of the daily ISDAfix setting window. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to these activities in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint replacing HSBC Bank plc with HSBC Bank USA. A motion to dismiss that complaint was filed in April 2015, and a decision is pending. HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing on the settlement reached in the consolidated class action related to WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates. In late 2013 and early 2014, HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America Holdings Inc. ('HNAH') and HSBC Bank USA were named as defendants, amongst other banks, in various putative class actions filed in the New York District Court. In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging, amongst other things, that defendants conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates (the 'Consolidated Action'). Separate putative class actions were also brought on behalf of non-US plaintiffs (the 'Foreign Actions'). Defendants moved to dismiss all actions. In January 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action, but granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Foreign Actions. Five additional putative class actions were subsequently filed in the New York District Court making similar allegations on behalf of persons who engaged in foreign exchange futures transactions on a US exchange, and those additional actions were subsequently consolidated with the Consolidated Action. In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a further amended complaint that, amongst other things, added new claims and parties, including HSBC Securities (USA), Inc. In September 2015, HSBC reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In December 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and HSBC made payment of the agreed settlement amount into an escrow account. The court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing. HSBC HOLDINGS: ERISA Action in Calif. Transferred to New York ------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action was filed in the New York District Court in June 2015 making similar allegations on behalf of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ('ERISA') plan participants, and another complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2015. HSBC filed a motion to transfer the California action to New York, which was granted in November 2015. INT'L COFFEE & TEA: Fails to Pay Bonus, "Hosseini" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Luisa Hosseini, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. International Coffee & Tea, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business as The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC612020, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants consistently and systemically failed to include the monthly non-discretionary bonus amount when calculating Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' regular and overtime rate of pay; and failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all wages owed upon the separation of their employment, including the unpaid overtime and other wages. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Olivia D.Scharrer, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP AProfessional Law Corporation 1156E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91106 Tel: (213)674-6080 Fax: (213)674-6081 J.M. SMUCKER: Faces "Ocasio" Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernice Ocasio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80359-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2016), seeks redress for the alleged pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, false, and otherwise improper advertising, sales, and marketing practices that Defendant engages in regarding its Creamy Supreme Milk Chocolate frosting product (frosting), under the Florida Law and the FDA Law. The J.M. Smucker manufactures, markets, and sells ready-to-use frosting in a variety of flavors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY: Filed 6th Cir. Appeal in Retirees Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey-Hayes Company, TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation and TRW Automotive, Inc. on Feb. 26, 2016, lodged an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in a class action lawsuit. The lower court case is, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Nald D. Strait, Danny O. Stevens, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kelsey-Hayes Company, TRW Automotive, Inc., TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 11-cv-15497 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiffs Strait and Stevens represent a class of retirees who worked at the Kelsey-Hayes manufacturing plant in Jackson, Michigan, which closed in July 2006. They sued after the Defendants discontinued group coverage insurance for eligible retirees and spouses, age 65 and older, and replaced it with an HRA (health reimbursement accounts) funding program. On Jan. 28, 2016, District Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an "OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [100] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REAFFIRM PRIOR GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION [101]". A copy of Judge Drain's decision is available at http://bit.ly/1LDuWBr from Leagle.com. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John G. Adam, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL 306 S. Washington Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: (248) 398-5900 - and - Stuart M. Israel, Esq. Law Office 306 S. Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067-0000 Tel: 248-398-5900 The Defendants are represented by: Todd A. Dawson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1900 E. Ninth Street Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (216) 621-0200 - and - Gregory Valentin Mersol, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1900 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114 Business: (216) 621-0200 Personal: (216) 861-7935 KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------- Chauncy Ellison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01136-JS (E.D. Penn., March 10, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan & Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years, in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner. Kraft Heinz Foods Company owns and operates a food company located at 3000 Executive Pkwy, San Ramon, CA 94583. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. Philip Sholtz, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932-3232 Facsimile: (314) 932-3233 E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com phil@thedriscollfirm.com KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Higens" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Higens and Ryan Schmidt, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-03016 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan & Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years, in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner. Kraft Heinz Foods Company owns and operates a food company located at 3000 Executive Pkwy, San Ramon, CA 94583. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. Julia L. Titolo, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com jim@bockhatchllc.com julia@bockhatchllc.com KRANG GROUP: "Skiba" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damian Skiba, Celso Cabrera, Luis Cabrera, and Pawel Poliwka individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Krang Group, Inc. and AFL Construction Co., Inc., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by. Krang Group, Inc. and AFL Construction Co., Inc. with respect to certain Public Works Projects awarded by The City Of New York And The State Of New York, the Plaintiffs, v. Krang Group, Inc. and AFL Construction Co., Inc. and John Doe Bonding Companies 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 152072/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New York, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages and/or supplemental benefits which they are statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for their services performed at the Public Works Project, under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Krang Group is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal location at Brooklyn, New York. Krang is engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Segev" Suit Over VTech Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Raha V. Segev and Richard Farias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., William B. Chiasson, John Barbour, Thomas J. Kalinske, Stanley E. Maron, E. Stanton McKee, Jr., Joanna Rees, Randy 0. Rissman, Caden C. Wang, Stephen M. Youngwood, VTech Holdings Limited, and Bonita Merger Sub, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. RG16805569, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016), challenges a transaction wherein VTech Holdings Limited will acquire all outstanding shares of LeapFrog common stock in an all-cash transaction valued at an aggregate of approximately $72 million. The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process designed to ensure the sale of LeapFrog to VTech at a price substantially below the fair and inherent value of LeapFrog and under terms and conditions preferential to VTech and other defendants, but detrimental to LeapFrog's public stockholders, the lawsuit claims. LeapFrog designs, develops, and markets technology-based learning roducts and related proprietary content for children worldwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Azar, Esq. MILBERG LLP 3 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600 Los Angeles, California 90024 Tel: (213) 915-8870 Email: dazar@milberg.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor New York, New York 10119 Tel: (212) 594-5300 - and - J. Elazar Frucher, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 570 Lexington A venue, 16th floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 758-4000 LENDMARK FINANCIAL: "Figgs" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sherryl Figgs, individually and on behalf of others Similarly Situated, v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-C-15-005716 OC, was removed on Feb. 26, 2016, from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the District Court for the District of Maryland and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00566-JFM. The case is assigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Santoni, Esq. WILLIAMS AND SANTONI LLP 401 Washington Ave Ste 200 Towson, MD 21204 Tel: (410) 938-8666 Fax: (410) 938-8668 Email: jane@williams-santonilaw.com - and - Kathleen Hyland, Esq. Williams & Santoni, LLP 401 Washington Avenue Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Tel: (410) 938-8666 Fax: (410) 938-8668 Email: kat@williams-santonilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian L Moffet, ESq. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 385-3656 Email: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com - and - Zachary Schultz, Esq. Miles & Stockbridge P.C. 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 385-3657 Email: zschultz@milesstockbridge.com LORD & TAYLOR: Settles Charges Over Deceptive Instagram Posts ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Lord & Taylor will settle U.S. charges that it deceived customers when it paid for Instagram posts and also a website article to promote a new clothing line without disclosing that they were advertisements. The department store chain gave 50 popular trendsetters on Instagram a free dress and paid them as much as $4,000 to post a picture of them wearing it, the Federal Trade Commission said on March 14. The posts reached more than 11 million Instagram users and the dress sold out, according to the FTC. Lord & Taylor also paid the pop-culture magazine Nylon to post an article online about the new line. "Consumers have the right to know when they're looking at paid advertising," said FTC's director of consumer protection bureau, Jessica Rich. Lord & Taylor said it never tried to deceive customers and that it corrected the posts and article when the FTC raised the issue a year ago. Nylon declined to comment. In settling the charges, Lord & Taylor is prohibited from "misrepresenting" paid ads in the future. If it does, the department store chain could pay civil penalties, the FTC said. Lord & Taylor has 50 stores around the country. It is owned by Hudson's Bay Co. of Toronto, which also owns Saks Fifth Avenue. LOS ANGELES, CA: To Settle curfew Class Action for $30 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Zusha Elinson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Los Angeles will pay as much as $30 million to settle a class- action lawsuit brought against the city over its practice of enforcing curfews for alleged gang members as part of an effort to crack down on gang crime. The unusual resolution stems from L.A.'s use of gang injunctions, a popular law enforcement tool. Under the injunctions, those identified as gang members or associates can be prohibited from gathering, staying out late or wearing certain clothing. The agreement was approved on March 16 by the Los Angeles City Council to resolve the suit filed on behalf of nearly 6,000 Angelenos identified by police as gang members and subjected to gang injunctions. The city payout will help fund job training for people who were forced to stay indoors at night under the injunction. The suit accused Los Angeles police of enforcing the curfew even though a similar provision in Oxnard, Calif., had been previously ruled unconstitutionally vague by a state court in 2007. Gang injunctions have been used widely, especially on the West Coast, as a way to combat gang violence. But civil-rights attorneys have challenged them for trampling on constitutional rights. The settlement "provides a very real opportunity for folks who've been marginalized to make their lives better," said Olu K. Orange, attorney for the plaintiffs. The city will pay as much as $7.5 million for four years to nonprofits to provide job training, counseling, life skills and tattoo removal to the plaintiffs or their families. Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said it "creates an innovative pathway for individuals served with gang injunctions to gain the job skills they need to turn their lives around." A spokesman for Mr. Feuer said the city has stopped enforcing the curfew on suspected gang members but continues to use the other provisions in the gang injunctions because "we find that they are an effective tool." The case stemmed from the 2009 arrest of Christian Rodriguez for being out after a 10 p.m. curfew. Mr. Rodriguez had been tagged by police as being a member of a gang called the Culver City Boys. But Mr. Orange said Mr. Rodriguez wasn't in the gang and was a standout high-school student. The attorney said he never got to the bottom of how his client ended up on the list of gang members. Criminal charges against Mr. Rodriguez for violating curfew were eventually dropped. "They daisy-chain the list -- you're on the list if you hang out with a certain person," Mr. Orange said. "A running joke we had during this case was they were going to put me on the list for hanging out with these guys as their attorney." Mr. Rodriguez, who now works as an emergency medical technician, said "because I was wrongly labeled as a gang member, I couldn't even be outside helping my mom with the groceries at night." He called gang injunctions "a form of psychological abuse on a whole generation of young people of color." Attorneys for the city argued during the litigation that Mr. Rodriguez was part of the gang, a spokesman for the city attorney said. Police and prosecutors maintain that gang injunctions helped bring down violence in Los Angeles over the years. Gang killings had dropped in the city until recently. "It prevents them from terrorizing parks and different places," said Wes McBride, executive director of the California Gang Investigators Association, who worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's gang unit. "When they gather together they either conspire to commit crime or they become the victims of other gangs." LUGG INC: Case Management Conference in "Sims" Set for July 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- A case management conference is scheduled for July 27, 2016, in the case, Josh Sims, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lugg, Inc., Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 550654 (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016). The case is assigned to Judge John K. Stewart. LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Feng Wen Liu, Yun Jian Tang and Yun Bin Wang, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumix Hibachi Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Lumix Hibachi, Qi Lin, Mei Yu Zhang, Jian Xiong Chen, Tommy Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-01216 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), 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 restaurant in Nassau County located at 693 Sunrise Hwy, Lynbrook, NY 11563. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718)353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fermin Cardona, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Manfredini Landscaping Company, d/b/a Manfredini Landscaping & Design, also d/b/a Manfredini Landscaping & Design Co., and Enrico Manfredini, Case No. 1:16-cv-03018 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping, gardening, snowplowing, and maintenance services, and building custom fireplaces and outdoor kitchens. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org MATCH GROUP: IPO Documents Contain False Info, "Stein" Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- David M. Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Match Group, Inc., Gregory R. Blatt, Gary Swidler, Michael H. Schwerdtman, Gregg J. Winiarski, Joseph M. Levin, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., PNC Capital Markets LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Fifth Third Securities, Inc., and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 00549-L (N.D. Tex., February 26, 2016), alleges that the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO was inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts. Match Group provides dating products. It operates a portfolio of approximately 45 brands, including Match, OkCupid, Tinder, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, and FriendScout24. Match Group offers its dating products through its websites and applications in 38 languages in approximately 190 countries. It also provides various test preparation, academic tutoring, and college counseling services. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Groupis a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. The case is assigned to Judge Sam A Lindsay. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, Texas 75219 Tel: (214) 560-2201 Fax: (214) 560-2203 Email: rlm@lhlaw.net beb@lhlaw.net - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 983-1300 Fax: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com MDL 2672: "Noggle" Suit Consolidated in California -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chelsea Noggle, individually and on behalf of others similarly suited, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-00031, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the District of California Northern District (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00713-CRB to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks damages, injunction relief, and equitable relief as a result of Volkswagen's conduct related to the Defeat Device, and other defects, including but not limited to defects related to emission levels in the Affected Vehicles. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Noggle case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Greener, Esq. Fredric V. Shoemaker, Esq. Loren K. Messerly, Esq. GREENER BURKE SHOEMAKER OBERRECHT P.A. 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 950 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 319 2600 Facsimile: (208) 319 2601 E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com fshoemaker@greenerlaw.com lmesserly@greenerlaw.com MDL 2677: "Carbone" Suit Transferred to Boston ---------------------------------------------- Giancarlo Carbone and Jeremy Huard, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FanDuel Inc., and DraftKings Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10410, (D. Mass., February 26, 2016), alleges fraud. The case was originally filed on Nov. 25, 2015 (D. Conn. Case No. 3:15-cv-01740). It was transferred to Boston on Feb. 26, and consolidated in In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2677. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Newman, Esq. BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP 747 Stafford Avenue Bristol, CT 06010 Tel: (860) 583-5200 Fax: (860) 589-5780 Email: bnewman@bpslawyers.com - and - Cody Nolan Guarnieri, Esq. BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT LLP 100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100 Hartford, CT 06103 Tel: (860) 522-3343 Fax: (860) 533-2490 Email: cguarnieri@bpslawyers.com - and - Zak A. Jazlowiecki, Esq. JAZLOWIECKI & ASSOCIATES 11 Lincoln Avenue Forestville, CT 06010 Tel: (860) 674-8000 Fax: (860) 585-1561 Email: zjazlowiecki@jazlowiecki.com Defendant, Fanduel, Inc., is represented by: Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE, LLP 280 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Tel: (860) 275-8388 Fax: (860) 275-8299 Email: wackerman@rc.com MDL 2677: "Triantafylidis" Case Transferred from Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- Petros Triantafylidis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FanDuel Inc., Defendant, was transferred on Feb. 26, 2016, from the Western District of Missouri, Case No. 15-01007 to the U.S. District Court in Boston, and consolidated in In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2677. The Boston case is assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10408. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Thomas Ricke, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 531-0033 Fax: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: atr@edgarlawfirm.com - and - Boyce N. Richardson, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Avenue Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 531-0033 Fax: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: bnr@edgarlawfirm.com - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Avenue Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 531-0033 Fax: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com Defendant, Fanduel, Inc., is represented by: Daniel Hodes, Esq. ROUSE, HENDRICKS, GERMAN, MAY, PC 1201 Walnut St., 20th Floor Kansas City, MO 64106 Tel: (816) 471-7700 Fax: (816) 471-2221 E-mail: danh@rhgm.com MDL 2687: Environmental Research Suit Consolidated in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Environmental Research And Design, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. General Chemical Corporation; General Chemical Performance Products, LLC; Chemtrade Logistics Inc.; Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; Gentek, Inc.; Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc.; and Frank A. Reichl, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06421, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00735 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and other relief as maybe determined as just and proper, under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Defendants' allegedly conspired and agreed to fix, raise, inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of liquid aluminum sulfate, rig bids and allocate customers for liquid aluminum sulfate supplied to municipalities, pulp and paper companies, agricultural companies and all other direct purchasers in the United States. General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Environmental case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S. between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R. David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16- md-02687-JLL-JAD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 814 6750 Facsimile: (215) 814 6764 E-mail: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com DavidM@rgrdlaw.com PatC@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert C. Gilbert, Esq. VKOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 200 S.W. 1ST Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525 4100 Facsimile: (954) 525 4300 E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com - and - Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq. OERTEL, FERNANDEZ, BRYANT & ATKINSON, P.A. 2060 Delta Way Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 521 0700 Facsimile: (850) 521 0720 E-mail: koertel@ahfc.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard H. Epstein, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC One Riverfront Plaza 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 643 7000 E-mail: repstein@sillscummis.com - and - Steven A. Reiss, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGUS L.L.P. 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 - and - James Howard Mutchnik KIRKLAND & ELLIS 200 E. Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861 2350 - and - Michael B. Himmel, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC 6 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597 6172 E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com - and - Michael A. Kaplan, Esq. JARVE & KAPLAN, LLC 10 Lake Center Executive Park 401 Route 73 North, Suite 204 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 235 9500 E-mail: makaplan@hotmail.com MDL 2687: "Flambeau" Suit Moved to N.J. Court --------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Flambeau River Papers, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation; General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., and Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06422, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00737 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants' allegedly conspired and agreed to fix, raise, inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of liquid aluminum sulfate, rig bids and allocate customers for liquid aluminum sulfate supplied in the US in violations to the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Flambeau case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S. between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R. David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16- md-02687-JLL-JAD. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard J. Sedran, Esq. Keith Verrier, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592 1500 E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael B. Himmel, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC 6 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597 6172 E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com - and - Michael A. Kaplan, Esq. JARVE & KAPLAN, LLC 10 Lake Center Executive Park 401 Route 73 North, Suite 204 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 235 9500 E-mail: makaplan@hotmail.com - and - Richard H. Epstein, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA 12th floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 643 7000 E-mail: repstein@sillscummis.com - and - Steven A. Reiss, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGUS L.L.P. 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 MDL 2687: Metropolitan Council Suit Moved to N.J. Court ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Metropolitan Council, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Case No. 0:15-cv-04266, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JLL-JAD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages due to Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by allegedly conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition in the market for liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) sold to Plaintiff. The conspiracy included but was not limited to their agreement to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for Alum contracts and to submit artificially inflated bids. The Alum is a versatile chemical that can function as a coagulant, flocculant, precipitant, and emulsion breaker. Alum removes turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and biochemical oxygen demand. Alum is used in both municipal and industrial applications. General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Metropolitan case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S. between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R. David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16- md-02687-JLL-JAD. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily E Chow, Esq. Richard A Duncan, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766 7000 Facsimile: (612) 766 1600 MDL 2687: City of Rochester Suit Consolidated in D. N.J. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled City of Rochester, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Case No. 0:15-cv-04266, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JLL-JAD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages due to Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by allegedly conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition in the market for liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) sold to Plaintiff. The conspiracy included but was not limited to their agreement to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for Alum contracts and to submit artificially inflated bids. The Alum is a versatile chemical that can function as a coagulant, flocculant, precipitant, and emulsion breaker. Alum removes turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and biochemical oxygen demand. Alum is used in both municipal and industrial applications. Hawkins, Inc. blends, manufactures, and distributes various chemical products. The company operates in two segments, Industrial and Water Treatment. The Company is based in Roseville, Minnesota. General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. The City of Rochester case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S. between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R. David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16-md-02687-JLL-JAD. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily E Chow, Esq. Richard A Duncan, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766 7000 Facsimile: (612) 766 1600 MIHOMECARE: Care Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Conway, writing for BBC News, reports that a major care company could be facing a bill for hundreds of thousands of pounds for non-payment of the minimum wage. MiHomecare could face a group action lawsuit by care workers after it paid GBP1,250 to a carer in an out of court settlement. Caroline Barlow had sued the company for not paying for her travel time. The company says that since last year, they have been correcting carers' pay where it has been found to be wrong. They add that they are "disappointed Caroline chose to take a formal route". Ms Barlow said she was delighted by the outcome and is urging other carers to fight for the money they are owed. "I'm hoping it will make other people realise that you can take on a big company and you can win," she said. 'Appalled' The law firm Leigh Day, which brought this case, is now considering bringing a group action against MiHomecare and is appealing for other care workers to come forward. They say hundreds of carers -- both current and former employees of MiHomecare -- could now be owed thousands of pounds for unpaid travel time. Care workers who look after people in their homes, helping them to wash, dress, eat and take medication, have long argued that they have been paid less than the minimum wage because they were not being paid for the time it took them to travel between clients. Ms. Barlow worked for MiHomecare in Devon where the roads she drove down were often narrow country lanes. It could take her more than half an hour to travel between her elderly clients. That's why she was owed more than GBP1,000 despite having worked for the company for less than six months. Analysis of Ms. Barlow's timesheets show that on one day in January 2015 she travelled 38 miles between two clients. Beyond mileage, she was not paid for making these journeys. She says she is "appalled" that she had to resort to legal action, but that "as time went on it became more a matter of principle than the actual money I was receiving". In January, MiHomecare paid 100 carers in South Wales up to GBP2,500 each for previously unpaid travel time. The company is owned by the outsourcing giant Mitie. It employs 4,500 care workers who look after 10,000 elderly and disabled people in England and Wales. Mihomecare says that following a review in June last year it has "revised all pay rates that required adjustment and amended care rosters to ensure that they complied with relevant legislation." More generally, HM Revenue and Customs, which is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage, says it is investigating more than 100 care providers "as part of this we are taking targeted action against some of the biggest social care providers." MIRACLE MAIDS: Violated FLSA, CMWWA & CWCA, "Valdez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Aida Leonor Valdez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Miracle Maids, LLC, and George R. Capaldo, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00582 (Dist. Col., March 10, 2015), seeks to recover minimum overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act (CMWWA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), and the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA). Miracle Maids offers cleaning services including janitorial cleaning services to other businesses or commercial firms. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. BUSECHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C. 600 Grant Street - Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 333 7751 Facsimile: (303) 333 7758 E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, the leader in mobile enterprise security, on March 16 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed, with prejudice, the Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. securities class action that was filed on May 1, 2015 against the Company and certain of the Company's officers. The lawsuit alleged that the company violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading forecast for the first quarter of 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the case. On February 22, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting MobileIron's motion to dismiss finding that the Company's forecast was a forward-looking statement accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. The Court's order permitted Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 21 days. However, on March 11, 2015, Company and Plaintiffs filed a stipulation agreeing that Plaintiffs would not file an amended complaint or otherwise appeal the Court's order and that Plaintiffs' case would be dismissed with prejudice. No money was exchanged as part of this agreement. On March 14, the Court dismissed this federal case. About MobileIron MobileIron -- http://www.mobileiron.com-- provides the secure foundation for companies around the world to transform into Mobile First organizations. MONDAY SOCIAL: July 27 Case Management Conference in "Urrutia" -------------------------------------------------------------- A case management conference is scheduled for July 27, 2016, in the case, Millie Urrutia, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Muse Lifestyle Group, LLC, Monday Social, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and 1624 Las Palmas, LLC dba Sound Nightclub, Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 550655 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2016). The case is assigned to Judge John K. Stewart. MOODY'S CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Commerzbank Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim in a class action lawsuit. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively, $5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question, and on June 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled in Moody's favor. The case was then returned to the Second Circuit for final disposition of the appeal. On February 23, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim. Moody's is a provider of (i) credit ratings, (ii) credit, capital markets and economic related research, data and analytical tools, (iii) software solutions and related risk management services, (iv) quantitative credit risk measures, financial services training and certification services and (v) outsourced research and analytical services to financial institution customers. NATERA INC: "Cahoj" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Mika Cahoj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Jonathan Sheena, Hermrosenman, Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C. Driscoll, Jr., James I. Healy, John Steuart, SC Management, LLC, Sequoia Capital XI, LP, Lightspeed Ultimate General Partner VIII, Ltd., Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cowen And Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Wedbush Securities Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV537717 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages under the Securities Act, in connection with their purchases of stock. Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Defendant's IPO contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed. Accordingly, Plaintiff who hold the common stock issued pursuant to the Prospectus have the right to rescind and recover the consideration paid for their shares, and hereby tender their common stock to Defendants sued. Natera, a genetic testing company, develops and commercializes non-invasive methods for analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in the United States and Europe. The company primarily offers Panorama, a non-invasive prenatal test for fetal chromosomal abnormalities; Horizon test; and pre-implantation genetic screening and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis tests under the Spectrum brand to analyze chromosomal anomalies or inherited genetic conditions during an in vitro fertilization. The Company is based in San Carlos, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com NEW LAND CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Erik H. Garcia, individually; Erik H. Garcia, on behalf of others similarly situated; Enrique Hernandez, individually; and Enrique Hernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Land Contracting, Inc., dba New Land Contracting; IFM Contracting Inc., dba New Land Contracting; Larry Cami, aka Larry Latif; Imer Cami; and Ferrit Cami, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01505 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are representing themselves. NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lead Poisoning Victims Get Average $17,000 Each ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard A. Webster, writing for NOLA.com, reports that Bridgette Kinard remembers the men in the "white suits." They came to her apartment in the B.W. Cooper housing development in the 1990s, wrapped head to toe in specialized clothing to protect them from hazardous materials. They were testing for lead, a toxic metal once found throughout the city's public housing complexes. "It's five, six, seven, eight people at one time coming into your unit, and they're all covered up and you're not and you're wondering, 'Am I contaminated? Is there something wrong with me?'" The lead levels in Ms. Kinard's apartment registered high enough that the Housing Authority of New Orleans decided to relocate her family, including her four young children. But instead of moving them to another part of the city, Ms. Kinard said, HANO simply gave them the keys to a different unit in the same complex. Today, two of her children struggle with upper respiratory issues, stomach ailments, and attention deficit disorder, Ms. Kinard said. These are all common symptoms of lead poisoning, according to the Mayo Clinic. "My son is still suffering from it. He can't keep food down," she said. Ms. Kinard said she had little hope of receiving financial assistance until 2011, when insurance companies for HANO settled a long-running class action lawsuit over lead poisoning for $67 million. It seemed like a significant victory for thousands of public housing families facing a lifetime of mounting medical bills. But it didn't quite work out that way. A NOLA.com/The Times- Picayune review of hundreds of pages of court documents has discovered that the roughly 2,000 eligible victims of lead poisoning in the city's public housing developments received, on average, no more than $17,000. Meanwhile, three lawyers appointed by the court to help administer the settlement fund were paid, in total, almost $2 million, with one of them making almost half a million dollars for four months of work. Ms. Kinard's children didn't receive a dime. Their medical records had been lost during Hurricane Katrina. "We might as well have just floated away with the water," Ms. Kinard said. "I don't know what situation my children will face in their life, dealing with what's inside of them." In the coming months, the courts are expected to consider the last of multiple challenges to the settlement, bringing the 21-year-old case to an end. But instead of feeling closure, some public housing residents say they feel cheated and disillusioned with a class action system that lets attorneys make millions of dollars while the real victims walk with barely enough money to pay for a few years of therapy and medical care. Dolfinette Martin, who lived in B.W. Cooper from when she was just a child in 1973 to Hurricane Katrina, said five of her children tested positive for the toxic metal. Her daughter, Theone, suffered the worst. Theone was born prematurely and couldn't hear or speak until age 6, Martin said. Today, at the age of 20, she can't read or tell time, all common symptoms of lead poisoning. "I am so tired of every time there's something to gain, low- income, public housing residents, we're the poster child for that cause," Ms. Martin said. "But the minute that money trickles in, that money does not touch the lives of one person (who is) from poverty-stricken neighborhoods. "To give these children a $17,000 check and say, 'We did right by you,' is criminal." The federal government has taken steps to diminish the effects of lead, banning its use in paint since 1978 and gasoline since 1996. In 1987, Congress approved the Housing and Community Development Act, requiring public housing agencies to remove all traces of lead from their properties to protect their tenants. Eleven years later, however, a Tulane University study found that almost a third of children in New Orleans public housing continued to have dangerously high levels of lead. HANO officials at the time refused to provide Tulane researchers with information on how they were complying with federal regulations to remove lead from their housing complexes. Omega Ellis, however, said she witnessed firsthand what she described as HANO's remediation efforts. Like Kinard, Ellis, 36, said the men in hazmat suits came to her family's apartment in the B.W. Cooper housing development in the early 1990s and determined that it, too, was full of lead. But unlike Ms. Kinard, Ms. Ellis said, the agency didn't offer to relocate her family. Instead, workers shaved some paint off the porch railings, leaving piles of contaminated chips in the dirt. And that was it. "They feel like poor black kids, that's what we're used to growing up in poverty. 'Why should we help them?'" said Ms. Ellis, who added that she suffers from bronchitis and a heart murmur, both symptoms of lead poisoning. "Nobody cares. Nobody worries." Lawyers, however, began to take notice. In 1991, HANO settled more than 60 individual lead-poisoning suits for a total of $1 million. Three years later, a team of attorneys filed a class-action suit against the Housing Authority in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. The case dragged on for years, enduring numerous delays caused by the withdrawal and recusal of multiple judges, the deaths of two defense attorneys and one plaintiffs' attorney, frequent continuances and Hurricane Katrina, according to court documents. Finally in 2011, the plaintiffs and their attorneys got the breakthrough they wanted: HANO's seven insurance companies agreed to settle for $67 million. When deciding how to distribute the money, the presiding judge at the time, Joseph Tiemann, determined that 50 percent of the money would go to the affected families. That's $33.5 million. Of the rest, 40 percent would go toward the fees of the plaintiffs' attorneys, 5 percent to the plaintiffs' attorneys' legal expenses, and 5 percent would be reserved for court costs. Two more years passed without a single check being sent to the affected families. So in 2013, Civil District Court Judge Tiffany Chase took over the case from Tiemann, who had been serving on a temporary basis. One of her primary objectives was to fast-track settlement payments to the lead-poisoning victims. To that end, Judge Chase looked to appoint someone as special master, to help her oversee and manage the distribution of money. She chose two men she knew for years: Scott Bickford and James Williams. The special masters Special masters are typically appointed by judges to resolve disputes and enforce judicial orders in complex, unwieldy lawsuits. They act on behalf of the judge and serve as officers of the court. Given their pedigrees, Messrs. Bickford and Williams appeared to be suited for the work. Mr. Bickford is a partner at the Martzell & Bickford law firm, where he has served as counsel in several class-action cases involving asbestos exposure and large oil spills, including the 2010 BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. In less than a year as special master in the lead poisoning case, Mr. Williams made $503,449.67. To date, Mr. Bickford has made $771,391.63. The court paid them with money from the settlement fund, with most of their money coming from the portion set aside for the children. In comparison, the nine attorneys who represented the public housing residents and secured the $67 million settlement are set to split roughly $27 million for an average of $3 million per lawyer. Several of those attorneys worked on the case for more than two decades. 'A sweet deal for lawyers' Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said that in a relatively small legal community such as New Orleans, it's common for judges to appoint people they know and trust as special masters. The job requires the dedication of a significant amount of time in addition to a vast wealth of legal knowledge and expertise. And the appointments of Bickford and Williams appeared to pay off. Five months after they were brought on the case, the court began to send out the first settlement checks to lead-poisoned residents. But Mr. Sherman said such appointments must be made carefully as they can raise questions of impropriety and political pay-offs, especially among the plaintiffs who might feel as if they were treated unfairly. He cited a section of the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct that states judges "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and that judges "shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment." The code also states a "judge should avoid appointments which tend to create the appearance of impropriety. A judge shall not approve the compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered." "These kinds of perks that judges can hand out, like appointing close friends or former law firm members to receiverships, that's a sweet deal for lawyers," said Mr. Sherman, a student of complex litigation and civil trials. "Those kinds of things are done quite a bit in Louisiana, and it has something to do with the fact that judges are elected and therefore judges do favors for attorneys. They have to raise money for re-elections somehow. It's certainly troubling." Further, "if, ultimately, the payment to the class members is siphoned off with all kinds of fees (given to special masters), then you're undermining the purpose of the class action," he said. In the lead poisoning suit, several plaintiffs' attorneys filed motions protesting the amount paid to Williams, specifically $221,510 worth of invoices he filed between December 2013 and March 2014. These were for phone calls that Williams said were handled by the staff at his law firm, according to an August 2014 motion filed by plaintiffs' attorney Peter Sloss. In one of the invoices, Mr. Williams said his staff handled 1,490 calls, each lasting 20 minutes, on a single day, according to Mr. Sloss' motion. That's 497 hours for which Williams charged $85 per hour, for $42,245. "To support those numbers, (the law firm) would have had to have 62 staff members using 62 phone lines doing nothing but handling telephone calls for 8 hours," Mr. Sloss stated in the motion. "These numbers are astounding. Whatever the explanation may be, the class is entitled to an explanation." Mr. Sloss asked that the court audit Mr. Williams' billings. Judge Chase has yet to issue a ruling. Messrs. Bickford and Williams would not comment for this story. They cited the pending litigation. Judge Chase did not respond to requests for comment. Before the court could disburse the settlement money, it had to create tutorships, or legal guardianships, for about 300 plaintiffs who received more than $10,000 and were still minors. Typically the plaintiffs' attorneys would have handled the job, but by that point they had splintered. Infighting made it impossible for them to work together on the tutorships, attorney Joe Bruno said in court documents. So at some point, it was suggested that the court hire an outsider to perform the work. "Our relationship had, by that time, deteriorated to the point where no one could rise and become the leader, and you need to have a quarterback," Mr. Bruno said in court documents. Gill-Jefferson became that quarterback. A 'flat rate bonanza' On Nov. 13, 2013, Ms. Gill-Jefferson started working on the case for her requested payment amount. For a flat fee of $1,500 per child she would complete more than 300 tutorships in 14 days. That's about $450,000 for two weeks' work. Yet no one will say whose idea it was to hire Gill-Jefferson. Several of the plaintiffs' attorneys said in court documents they thought Chase was responsible. But Chase wrote in a per curiam, or court decision, that she "took no part in this decision" and was under the belief that the attorneys agreed to hire Ms. Gill- Jefferson. Despite the uncertainty, Gill-Jefferson got the job. When it was finished four months later, instead of the two weeks estimated, Judge Chase approved Ms. Gill-Jefferson's requested fee of $463,606.99, which was paid out of the settlement fund from the pot of money set aside for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Gary Gambel and Jennifer Willis, two of the nine plaintiffs' attorneys, filed motions objecting to the payment. In addition to the fee being high, they said, Gill-Jefferson mainly sat on the sidelines, providing little more than oversight, while they and other attorneys handled the bulk of the work. Ms. Gill-Jefferson did little more than fill out forms with information collected from the plaintiffs by their attorneys, something "any competent secretary could (do) in ten minutes or less, probably more like five minutes," Ms. Willis stated in her motion. Mr. Gambel and Ms. Willis estimated that Gill-Jefferson deserved no more than $30,000, according to court documents. "Those in the middle with unknown motive were pressing for the engagement of Ms. Gill-Jefferson. If Ms. Gill-Jefferson wants more, she should seek it from those who promised it, and they should be liable for the fees, expenses and costs of this objectionable endeavor," Mr. Gamble said. He added that he and "the court were the pawns in this self-interested appointment process perpetrated by others," describing Gill-Jefferson's fee as a "flat rate bonanza." Mr. Gambel didn't name "those in the middle" or the "others" in his motion. Mr. Bruno, another plaintiffs' attorney, came to Ms. Gill- Jefferson's defense, calling her fee "reasonable," according to court records. "Trying to mobilize, organize and get everything done was an enormous undertaking, not the simplistic task that (Gambel and Willis) allege it was." On Aug. 4, 2014, the matter went before Chase. She dismissed motions to cancel the payment, saying Gill-Jefferson took on a "herculean" task, and that she "personally observed Ms. Gill- Jefferson, herself, walking over boxes of files for signature." Two weeks later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the decision, vacated Gill-Jefferson's payment and sent the case back to Chase. "We find no evidence of reasonable efforts made by trial court to determine the extent of effort expended by Ms. Gill-Jefferson to authenticate such a significant fee," stated the ruling. Less than a year later, Judge Chase reduced Ms. Gill-Jefferson's payment by $6,000. In January, the Fourth Circuit upheld Chase's ruling, stating that "despite the apparently very high legal fee award, we cannot find under the peculiar circumstances of this case that the trial judge abused her discretion." Ms. Gill-Jefferson's attorney, Richard Stanley, stated in court documents that "the results achieved by" his client "speak for themselves. In a relatively-short period, she performed over 300 tutorships that the (plaintiffs' attorneys) had not undertaken for roughly two decades, thus facilitating the timely disbursement of over $5 million in settlement proceeds." Mr. Gambel appealed Judge Chase's ruling again. The issue is now before the state Supreme Court. Ms. Gill-Jefferson would not comment for this story. She cited the pending litigation. 'You get paid, and here I get zero' "How in the hell (do) you get half a million to hand a person a check?" asked Ms. Martin, the former B.W. Cooper resident who raised five children in public housing. Ms. Kinard, who also lived in B. W. Cooper with her four children, raised the same objection, saying she feels victimized twice. First there was HANO, for failing to protect its residents; then came the courts. "I'm the one ... living back here. I'm the one ... running back and forth to the doctor with my kids. I'm the one ... up all night with my kids," Ms. Kinard said. "You get paid, and here I get zero. Once they get what they want, you're pushed to the side. You no longer exist, like I'm trash." To qualify for money from the settlement fund, families must have: -- Lived in or visited public housing before 2001 -- Been born after 1987 -- Medical documents showing they were poisoned by lead at the age of 6 or younger. The children of Ms. Martin and Ms. Kinard didn't qualify. Their medical records were lost during Katrina. "The lady next door to me qualified, her and her children," Ms. Kinard said. "We lived in the same building, in the same courtway. Our kids went to the same school. The only thing we didn't do is go to the same doctor." Ms. Ellis, who grew up in B. W. Cooper and now said she suffers from a heart murmur, also didn't qualify since she was born before 1987. "I'm angry. I'm upset," Ms. Ellis said. "I feel like the forgotten child." Ms. Martin said that giving people a few thousand dollars to make up for a lifetime of serious health issues is an insult. But the court never had to worry about most of the public housing residents contesting the amount of their settlement checks, Martin said: "You give a 19-, 20-, 21-year-old a $17,000 check? In this 'hood? They feel they hit the lottery. Of course they're going to accept that check. They've never seen that amount of money at one time." Ms. Martin did contest the settlement. Over the course of three weeks in 2014 she said she collected more than 60,000 signatures from former public housing residents who said their families were affected by lead poisoning and were shut out from the lawsuit. She said she wants to use the petition to reopen the case, but that so far she has been unsuccessful. "I think about the fact that not only did my kids, five of them, not receive any of the settlement money, it's as if my children don't even exist," Ms. Martin said. "I don't know one person (who) received a check who received more than $20,000. And I know at least 20 families personally that didn't receive a dime who lived in public housing, who raised their children in public housing, who deserved not just the money but to know you were done an injustice." NEW YORK: Feminine Hygiene Products to Be Exempted from Sale Tax ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Bahadur, writing for SELF, reports that earlier this month, five women brought a class-action lawsuit against the state of New York protesting the "tampon tax." Previously, under New York law, feminine hygiene products like tampons, sanitary pads, and menstrual cups were not classified as "medical necessities," and were subject to a 4 percent sales tax. There are approximately 10 million women of childbearing age in the state of New York, and they pay roughly $14 million per year in taxes on tampons and pads. The suit argued that this was unconstitutional, because it taxed women for simply being women, and called for the state to end the tax and provide millions in restitution for women who had been paying it. Clearly, the suit and other activism about the tampon tax has made an impact: on March 16, news broke that New York's Assembly passed legislation to exempt feminine hygiene products from New York state sales taxes. The legislation will now move to the Senate. Actress Margo Seibert is one of the women who brought the original tampon tax suit against the state of New York. She helps run an organization called Racket that helps low-income and homeless women get access to period supplies, which are often not available in shelters. When Ms. Seibert spoke to activist Jennifer Weiss- Wolf and learned that feminine hygiene products were not considered medical necessities, she knew that she had to take part in the class-action lawsuit activists Jennifer Moore, Catherine O'Neil, Natalie Brasington, and Taja-Nia Henderson were filing. "It is a bold statement to file a class-action lawsuit and to say that this is a tax that is discriminatory against women, because women are the people who use this product," Ms. Seibert tells SELF. "I realized we could take quite a stand together to get money back for the women where it really does count." Zoe Salzman, an attorney representing the suit, tells SELF that tampons and pads should absolutely be exempt from state taxes given the way the state of New York categorizes what is and is not medically necessary. "The way that the New York tax law defines necessities is extremely broad," she says. "It's really any item that's used to preserve human health. And the list of items that the Department of Taxation and Finance considers to fall within that broad definition is very long. It includes things like Rogaine--used to prevent and treat thinning hair loss in men. It includes dandruff shampoo, chapstick, foot powder used to prevent sweaty feet, and a long list of other things. But those are some of the most egregious examples." Ms. Seibert and Ms. Salzman both made it clear that they don't consider periods an illness, but that feminine hygiene products are still medically necessary because of what happens when women do not have access to these items. "Having a period is not being sick or having a disease, but there's no question that tampons and pads are used to preserve women's health," Ms. Salzman explains. "There's a very common sense argument that if women are free bleeding, that's not particularly good for women's health or, actually, public health. There's a whole list of health and hygiene concerns with that." NOODLES & COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Castillo, Anastassia Letourneau, and Jacquelyn Myhre, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Noodles & Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-03036 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Noodles & Company operates a chain of approximately 492 "fast casual" restaurants throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 - and - Relic Sun, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 - and - Paul W. Mollica, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 924-4888 Facsimile: (646) 509-2075 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: April 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Master Docket No. 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT IN RE: OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER FUNDS GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: The Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION To: All persons and entities that purchased or acquired A, B, or C shares of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund ("the Fund") between September 27, 2006 and November 28, 2008 (the "Class Period"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, that the lawsuit that is now pending in that court under the caption In re: Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 09- md-02063-JLK-KMT (D. Col.) relating to the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class as set forth in the full printed Notice of Class Certification ("Notice"). IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to known Class Members. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Administrator: Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund Notice Administrator PO Box 3719 Portland, OR 97208-3719 888-299-1179 www.OppenheimerCalMuniLitigation.com info@OppenheimerCalMuniLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the lawyers representing the Class: Alan W. Sparer Marc Haber Michael L. Gallo Sparer Law Group 100 Pine Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 217-7300 Lead Class Counsel Daniel C. Girard Dena C. Sharp Elizabeth A. Kramer Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 981-4800 Class Counsel If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time. You will automatically be included in the Class and all orders or judgments in the Action will apply to you. If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment in the Action, but you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked on or before April 29, 2016 in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. There may be a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a future settlement in the Action. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator. Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions. Dated: March 17, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court District of Colorado P.F. CHANG'S: Violated Unruh Act, "Arroyo" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Rafael Arroyo, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. d/b/a P.F.CHANG'S, the Defendant, Case No. BC613340 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under statutes of California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, through its subsidiaries, engages in the ownership and operation of restaurants in the United States. The company owns and operates two restaurant concepts, P.F. Chang's China Bistro and Pei Wei Asian Diner. As of January 1, 2012, it owned and operated 204 full service Bistro restaurants and 170 quick-casual Pei Wei restaurants; and operated 15 Bistro restaurants in Mexico, the Middle East and Puerto Rico under development and licensing agreements. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. As of July 2, 2012, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was taken private. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310)247-0160 PIGGLY WIGGLY: "Spires" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Dana Spires, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Glenn Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. David R Schools, William A. Edenfield, Jr., Robert G. Masche, Joseph T. Newton, III, Burton R. Schools, Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company Inc. & Greenbax Enterprises Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and Trust Plan Committee, Joanne Newton Ayers, Mark A. Ayers, Marion Newton Schools, Scott Schools, Stephen M. Schools, John Kizer, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00616-CWH (D.S.C., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of ERISA. The case is assigned to Honorable C. Weston Houck. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alice W Parham Casey, Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 801 Gervais Street, Suite B Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803) 254-6542 Fax: (803) 254-6544 Email: tparham@wyche.com - and - Eric Bauman Amstutz, Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 44 E Camperdown Way Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 242-8201 Fax: (864) 241-8900 Email: eamstutz@wyche.com - and - Henry L Parr, Jr., Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 44 E Camperdown Way Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 242-8209 Fax: (864) 235-8900 Email: hparr@wyche.com - and - John C Moylan, III, Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 801 Gervais Street, Suite B Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (864) 254-6542 Email: jmoylan@wyche.com - and - Wade S Kolb , III, Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 44 E Camperdown Way Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 242-8306 Email: wkolb@wyche.com PIONEER ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Zimmerman" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Zimmerman on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Pioneer Energy Services Corp. and Pioneer Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a Penkota Wireline Services, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00048-DLH-CSM (D. North Dakota, Western Div. March 10, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Pioneer Energy Services Corp., formerly Pioneer Drilling Company, provides drilling and production services to independent oil and gas exploration companies. The Company is based in Austin, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Newsom, LOVELL, LOVELL, NEWSOM & ISERN, L.L.P. Eagle Centre Building 112 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 1000 Amarillo, TX 79101-2314 Telephone: (806) 373 1515 Facsimile: (806) 379 7176 E-mail: tim@lovell-law.net - and - Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Collin Wynne, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331 800 Facsimile: (806) 398 9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com collin@youngfirm.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Facing Line 901 Incident Suits in Cal, Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending class action lawsuits in California and Texas related to the Line 901 Incident. "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California," the Company said. "A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. "Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The cause of the release remains under investigation. Our current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that we believed could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels. "As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to incur as a result of the Line 901 incident. "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we are processing those claims as we receive them. "In addition, we have also had seven class action lawsuits filed against us, all of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes such as persons that derive a significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. "There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. "The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates midstream energy infrastructure and provides logistics services for crude oil, natural gas liquids ("NGL"), natural gas and refined products. PLANET EXPRESS CARGO: "Slebi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos J. Slebi, and other similarly, situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Planet Express Cargo and Courier Corp., Alvaro Cortes, and Olga Aya, Defendants, Case No. Case 1:16-cv-20711-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages and for retaliation under the laws of the United States, and for Retaliation under Florida Statutes Section 440.205. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. The case is assigned to Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Defendants are a Florida Profit corporation and Florida resident, respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and are engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Brandon Gibson, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, Florida 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com bgibson@saenzanderson.com PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in "Garcia" Suit --------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick granted a stipulation to shorten the time for hearing on the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and for approval of the FLSA collection action settlement in the case, HECTOR GARCIA, ROBERT CAHIGAL, BRIAN HOLLIDAY AND TINA DIEMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. C 15-00319 WHO (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's March 16, 2016, Order is available at http://bit.ly/1WEkFFHfrom Leagle.com. Hector Garcia, et al. represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and Hippel LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell Hippel LLP, Byron R. Goldstein, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho & William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho. PPG Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Sophia Behnia, Esq. Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. 50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 795-3490 E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com The Plaintiffs just finalized the settlement agreement as of March 10, 2015. The Court scheduled a status hearing in this case for March 22, 2016. The Stipulation provides that the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was scheduled to take place at the status hearing on March 22, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. PPG INDUSTRIES: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Jimenez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PPG Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Seaton, LLC, doing business as Staff Management Solutions, LLC., an Illinois limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. BC613324 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover wages and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to California Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders, California Business and Professions Code, and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). PPG is a global supplier of paints, coatings, optical products, specialty materials, glass and fiber glass. It owns and operates businesses in the County of Los Angeles and throughout the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 90017 Fax: (213) 542-2101 Phone: (213) 542-2100 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 240525 Park Sorrento, Ste.400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657 1070 Facsimile: (818) 297 1775 PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removes John Virga Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled John S. Virga D.C., P.A. v. Progressive American Insurance Company, Case No. CACE-16-000617, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60329-BB to the proceeding. Progressive American Insurance Company is a Florida-domiciled insurance corporation. The Company operates as a subsidiary of Drive Insurance Holdings, Inc., and is authorized to transact certain insurance coverage in Florida, including medical malpractice, private passenger auto liability, commercial automobile liability, private passenger auto physical damage Ÿ surety and commercial auto physical damage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com - and - Jay Martin Klitzner, Esq. 300 NW 82nd Avenue Executive Pavilion Suite 415 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 922-9100 E-mail: jaychin@aol.com - and - Mark S. Fistos, Esq. Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com steve@pathtojustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan Thomas West, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com - and - Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq. AKERMAN LLP One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 982-5643 E-mail: ross.linzer@akerman.com PTC THERAPEUTICS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kosin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., Stuart W. Peltz, and Shane Kovacs, Case No. 2:16-cv-01383-KM-MAH (D.N.J., March 10, 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. PTC Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of orally administered, small molecule therapeutics targeting an area of ribonucleic acid ("RNA") biology, known as post-transcriptional control. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Herrmann COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West - Plaza One 250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com QUADAMI INC: "Sanchez-Herrera" Suit Seeks Spread of Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Gustavo Sanchez-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quadami Inc. d/b/a Vincent's Clam Bar , Anthony Marisi, and Robert Marisi, Defendants, Case No. 1507/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 26, 2016), seeks payment of spread-of-hours pay under the New York Labor Law and the supporting regulations, 12 NYCRR Section 146-1.6. Quadami Inc., is a domestic corporation with its principle place of business located at 179 Old Country Rd. Carle Place New York 11514. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Tel: (516) 671-1150 Fax: (516) 882-5420 Email: smoscr@moseremplovmentlaw.com RAMIREZ SEAFOOD: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Paez" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Jose Abreu Paez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Ramirez Seafood Route Inc. (d/b/a Ramirez Seafood), and Belarminio Ramirez, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-01206 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Ramirez Seafood is a seafood wholesaler owned by Belarminio Ramirez, located in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 REB ENTERPRISES: "Mullen-Moore" FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Mullen-Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REB Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00935-MMB (E.D. Pa., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was removed by REB Enterprises, Inc. from the Common Pleas Philadelphia, case number 151104693, on Feb. 26, 2016. The case is assigned to Honorable Michael M. Baylson. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lee C. Durivage, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2000 Market St., Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 575-2584 Email: lcdurivage@mdwcg.com RUSHCARD: Prepares to Settle Prepaid Debit Card Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Mandi Woodruff, writing for Yahoo! Finance, reports that six months after a botched systems upgrade left hundreds of thousands of RushCard prepaid debit card users locked out of their accounts, the company is preparing to settle several lawsuits stemming from the debacle, according to court documents. In a motion filed March 15, a Manhattan court agreed to put the brakes on a pair of class action lawsuits filed by RushCard users in the Southern District of New York while they work out a group settlement with RushCard. A RushCard spokesperson and the company's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It's highly unlikely the terms of the settlement, which should be finalized by the end of May, will be made public. It's possible the settlement could encourage other consumers to file their own complaints. But even with this settlement, the company will still face the possibility of an investigation by federal agencies. After news of the fiasco made headlines in late October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau promised to look into RushCard to see if any violations occurred. The CFPB received hundreds of complaints in the wake of the outage, making RushCard the most complained-about prepaid card issuer for the three-month period from September to November. Russell Simmons, the music mogul who co-founded the company over a decade ago, publicly apologized for the outage on social media In a statement to Yahoo Finance in December, Simmons said he is intent on restoring his customers' faith in his product: "We realize that we did not live up to those high standards over the past two weeks, which is why we are committed to doing the right thing and learning from this experience, so we can restore trust with our current and future customers." Prepaid debit cards like the RushCard are popular with low-income consumers who may not otherwise qualify for a regular checking or savings account. That made the service outage all the more painful, as many RushCard users lost access to their only available cash. We spoke with dozens of affected consumers, some of whom fell behind on rent, had their cars repossessed and were skipping meals. In the class action complaint, plaintiffs said they weren't able to pay for basic necessities and faced additional fees imposed by RushCard when they sought to replace their prepaid cards. One of the plaintiffs said she was charged between 50 cents and $2.50 each time she tried and failed to access her RushCard funds from an ATM. Of the estimated 442,000 cardholders impacted by the outage, 17,000 came from Ohio, according to state Sen. Sherrod Brown. He co-authored a letter in December calling for a federal investigation. "RushCard owes it to the almost 17,000 Ohioans who were affected by this breakdown to cooperate with the investigation and ensure that this problem doesn't happen again," said Mr. Brown. "The thousands of RushCard customers who couldn't access their accounts to get their paychecks, buy groceries, pay bills, or pay rent deserve a much better explanation of how the company will make amends." The CFPB filed documents in November saying that RushCard representatives have been slow to respond to requests for information. At the time, RushCard spokesperson Larry Kopp told Yahoo Finance the company asked for more time to comply. "We are producing information and continue to work with the CFPB to address all of its concerns and, to that end, have agreed to a modified scope and timeframe for the Bureau's information requests that will enable RushCard to comply in a timely manner," he said. A CFPB spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending investigations. S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Composers Sue TIDAL for Music Royalties -------------------------------------------------------------- Yesh Music, LLC, and John K. Emanuele, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated copyright holders, Plaintiffs, v. S. Carter Enterprises, LLC, Black Panther Bidco, LTD, and Aspiro AB, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01521 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2016), asserts that Plaintiffs' "mechanical rights" for registered musical compositions were improperly infringed by Defendants' unlicensed and/or unauthorized reproduction and/or distribution of copyrighted compositions, and their failure to properly calculate royalties, and provide monthly statements detailing every track. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable for their intentional infringement of each of the 118 registrations in the amount of $150,000 per registration, but in no case less than $30,000 per registration and/or Defendants' profits, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiffs are the beneficial rights holders to 118 copyright registrations covering 148 musical recordings which Defendants have reproduced and distributed through the TIDAL Music Service without a license. S. Carter Enterprises, LLC, is a New York limited liability company with a headquarters located at 1411 Broadway, 39th Floor. New York, NY 10018. Carter controls the operations of the TIDAL Music Service. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C. 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, New York 10177 Tel: (212) 300-5358 Fax: (347) 218-9478 SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Peckham" Class Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc. The case is captioned Marilyn Peckham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied- Signal Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00292-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 13, 2016). Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. is a producer of engineered high performance polymer products for virtually every industry around the globe, including automotive, medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, food, beverage, airline, truck manufacturing, appliances, construction, and microelectronics. Honeywell International Inc. is a conglomerate company that produces a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations and governments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com SAINT JOSEPH: Judge Approves $30MM Data Breach Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Tom Renner, writing for White Plains, reports that Judge Kim G. Dunning recently approved what she described as the largest per- person data breach settlement on record, an agreement that provided over $30 million in value to 31,000 Saint Joseph Health System (SJHS) patients. The patients alleged that their medical information was wrongfully disclosed. Judge Dunning appointed Jeremiah Frei-Pearson -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- a partner at the White Plains class action law firm of Finkelstein, Blankenship, Frei-Pearson and Garber, LLP (FBFG), a Plaintiffs class action law firm, as co-lead class counsel in this landmark case. The per-person agreement is the largest known to date under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The case settled on the eve of trial, after plaintiffs won several significant motions the appellate court rejected the defendant's appeals. In addition FBFG and their co-counsel are also the only counsel to win a contested class certification motion under the Act. Data breaches have become endemic in modern society. Too often, the companies who are responsible for data breaches have used legal technicalities to avoid liability. However in the SJHS case, Plaintiffs' counsel fought to obtain a more just result. In the end, the defendant financially compensated the victims and also agreed to spend approximately $17 million to improve its cyber-security, which should prevent future data breaches. "This settlement is noteworthy because it provides Saint Joseph's patients with the highest dollar amount per person in any known data breach case and it also requires SJHS to spend a significant amount in improving its cyber-security," Mr. Frei-Pearson said. "The goal of data breach lawsuits is to compensate the victims and prevent future breaches, and I am very happy that in this instance we accomplished these goals." SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Antonio Arellano Galvan, Jose Alfredo Avila Torres and Rafael Aaron Brito Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. San Jose Mexican Restaurant of NC, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc., Alberto Flores Toledano and Edgardo Flores Perez, Case No. 7:16-cv-00039-FL (E.D.N.C., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Mexican restaurants in North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clermont F. Ripley, Esq. Carol L. Brooke, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 856-2154 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org carol@ncjustice.org SEPHORA USA: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Alyssa" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Burnthorne-Martinez, Alyssa An Individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sephora USA, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Does 1-50, Inclusive , the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 550894 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San Francisco, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, actual wages, liquidated wages, restitution, declaratory relief, prejudgment interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties, cost of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to the Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Sephora USA owns and operates a chain of perfume and cosmetics stores worldwide. The company offers makeup products, skin care products, fragrances, hair care products, bath and body products, nail products, professional tools and brushes, men's products, gifts, and more. It also provides beauty services, including custom makeover and personal one-on-one services. In addition, the company offers beauty classes, as well as a client loyalty program, which provides clients with access to gifts, event invitations, and select products. Further, it sells products through its online store. The company was founded in 1970 and is based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Velandia" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Irwing Velandia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Serendipity 3, Inc., doing business as: Serendipity 3, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01799-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, minimum damages, misappropriated tips, and unlawful deductions, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Serendipity 3, often written Serendipity III, is a restaurant located at 225 East 60th Street, between Second and Third avenues in New York City, founded by Stephen Bruce in 1954. The restaurant has been the scene of several films, including the 2001 romantic comedy Serendipity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Pechman Law Group PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583 9500 Facsimile: (212) 308 8582 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com SITCO ENTERPRISES: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Blanca Alvarez and all others similarly situated v. Sitco Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Summit Work Apparel and Mehriar Kaviani Espili, a/k/a Mark Kaviani, Case No. 4:16-cv-00632 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a machinery and equipment company located in Sugar Land, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 STATE FARM: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Durbin, Esq. -- ddurbin@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the court in Thompson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30308 (D. Ga. 2016), recently issued a mixed ruling on class certification regarding diminished value claims for Georgia homeowners. The plaintiffs sought certification for breach of contract claims against an insurer, as well as claims for breach of duties created by the homeowners insurance policy. The court certified a class of insureds for claims based on the insurer's alleged breach of duty to assess damaged property for diminished value, but declined to certify a class on a separate claim for breach of duty to pay for diminished value. In Thompson, the lead plaintiffs owned a Georgia townhouse insured by State Farm under a homeowners policy. The plaintiffs' home suffered water damage from a burst pipe, and State Farm paid for repairs to the damaged areas. State Farm did not, however, assess whether the repaired home was diminished in value after the repairs were made, and refused to pay for any alleged diminished value. The plaintiffs filed an alleged class action of Georgia insureds, arguing that State Farm's policy insuring "for accidental direct physical loss" created a duty for State Farm to assess and pay for diminished value. In deciding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the court substantially agreed with the plaintiffs' reliance on two Georgia Supreme Court cases, finding that State Farm could not get around Mabry's holding that "insurance companies have a duty to assess for diminished value and that when they fail to perform that assessment, their insureds have a remedy." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d 114 (2001). The Thompson court also pointed toward Royal Capital Dev., LLC v. Md. Cas. Co., 728 S.E.2d 234 (2012), as extending Mabry's holding to homeowners insurance. The Thompson court did, however, decline to certify a class for alleged breach of duty to pay for diminished value. Unlike the alleged breach of duty to assess for diminished value, the court found that the issue of diminished property value was not a common question among insureds, but rather would require a claim-by-claim analysis. The court said, "There is only a breach if in fact a class member's property decreased in value notwithstanding full repair," and "even after adjudicating the issue of coverage, significant questions concerning State Farm's liability would remain for each class member." This decision heightens the risk of class action litigation for homeowners claims where the insurer fails to assess for diminished value after repairs have been completed, at least in those states requiring payment of diminution in value. Thompson suggests that insurers may be subject to class action lawsuits for alleged breach of duty to assess for diminished value, even when the insurer denies that it offers such coverage. While the Thompson court denied certification for alleged breach of duty to pay for diminished value, insurers may be best served by expressly excluding coverage for diminished value under homeowners' policies. SUPER SHINE & DETAILING: Violated FLSA, "Canals" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Gisela Canals, Donald R. Johnson and other similarly situated non- exempt employees, the Plaintiff(s), v. Super Shine and Detailing, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Craig A. Greenberg, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-006087-CA- 01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Worker Pleads Not Guilty -------------------------------------------------- Clyde Hughes, writing for newsmax, reports that a hospital worker who may have exposed patients to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV is at the center of a class-action federal lawsuit against a Colorado medical center, which plaintiffs say acted negligently in hiring the 28-year-old surgical technologist. Rocky Allen was indicted in February on two federal counts after he was caught allegedly stealing a syringe filled with fentanyl from an operating room at Swedish Medical Center in Denver, according to The Denver Post. He has pleaded not guilty. The lawsuit claims that Mr. Allen, who court documents say is carrying an unknown bloodborne pathogen, was fired from four other hospitals for stealing fentanyl and was court martialed in 2011 while serving in the Navy, The Post said. Because of his history, he never should have been hired at Swedish, the plaintiffs argue. "By the time Allen appeared on the doorstep of SMC in August 2015 looking for a job as a surgical technician, all the warning signs of what would later occur at SMC were present," the lawsuit reads. "Allen already had been terminated by numerous other hospitals for the exact conduct that has now exposed thousands of SMC patients at an increased risk of bloodborne pathogens." Three plaintiffs are named in the suit, but it extends to all individuals who had surgery at Swedish Medical Center between Aug. 17 and Jan. 22, The Denver Post reported. The three who are named have tested negative for the viruses but are encouraged to continue routine testing. The suspect, who investigators say is a drug addict, worked for a short time at the Northwest Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle in 2012 before he was fired, according to KIRO-TV. The facility recently notified more than 1,300 patients that they may have been exposed to Hepatitis B, C, and HIV during Allen's tenure there. "Court documents say Allen worked at Northwest Hospital in early 2012 and at the Naval hospital in Bremerton from 2007 to 2011," KING-TV reported. "Investigators also found Allen had stolen fentanyl from a hospital in San Diego, lied on job applications and, at one point, tested positive for marijuana. "Washington's Department of Health said on March 15 two more medical facilities in the Puget Sound region would be named, and up to 700 more patients will be encouraged to test themselves as well," the station continued. T.F. LOUDERBACK: "Tyrone" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under CLC -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Windham, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. T.F. Louderback, Inc. d/b/a Bay Area Beverage Company, a California Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG1016807164 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid wages, restitution under, unpaid minimum wages, pursuant to the California Labor Code (CLC) and Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practices. T. F. Louderback distributes domestic and imported beverages in California. The company offers gourmet sodas, juices, teas, waters, spirits, wine, and craft and specialty beverages. It also rents jockey box systems, picnic pumps, beer trailers, and refer trucks, as well as sells cups and banners. T. F. Louderback, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Richmond, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 N. Central A venue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230 7259 TACI INVESTMENTS: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Yana Anderson, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Taci Investments, Inc., Kamal P. Singh, Sanjay Mehra, Mohammad H. Tily and Refeick Ali, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00126- JJB-RLB (M.D. La., February 25, 2016), seeks to recover, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Defendants operate KFC Fried Chicken, Long John Silver and Taco Bell franchise restaurants all over the U.S. Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Manager for one of their franchise restaurants and claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garner J. Wetzel, Esq. JAMES K. WETZEL & ASSOCIATES 1701 24th Avenue Post Office Box 1 Gulfport, MS 39502 Tel: (228) 864-6400 Fax: (228) 863-1793 Email: gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, Tennessee 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com TEREX CORPORATION: Ace Class Suit Transferred to N. Dist. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ace Tree Surgery, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Terex South Dakota, Inc., and Terex Utilities, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01120, was transferred from United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00775-SCJ to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability-claims. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing lifting and material handling solutions for a variety of industries, including construction, infrastructure, quarrying, recycling, energy, mining, shipping, transportation, refining and utilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. Suite 2350, 30 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - Andrew E. Brashier, Esq. Archie Irwin Grubb II, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES-AL P.O. Box 4160, 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com - and - Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 The Defendant is represented by: James I. Glasser, Esq. John Matthew Doroghazi, Esq. Kim E. Rinehart, Esq. WIGGIN & DANA One Century Tower 265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508-1832 Telephone: (203) 498-4313 Facsimile: (203) 782-2889 E-mail: jglasser@wiggin.com jdoroghazi@wiggin.com krinehart@wiggin.com - and - Kevin M. Smith, Esq. TRENAM KEMKER SCHARF BARKIN FRYE O'NEILL & MULLIS P.O. Box 1102, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Barnett Plaza, Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33601-1102 Telephone: (813) 223-7474 E-mail: info@trenam.com TEXAS: Flooding Class Action Mulled v. Sabine River Authority ------------------------------------------------------------- KHOU.com reports that flood victims from across Newton County are discussing a a potential class action lawsuit against the Sabine River Authority. The SRA is the agency that runs the Toledo Bend Reservoir and controls the releases from the damn that flooded the Sabine River Basin. While many in Newton County are working to deal with the flooding there are some that are planning legal action. A group of people on Facebook were planning a meeting on March 17 to discuss plans for a class action suit against the SRA. The group maintains that the water release from Toledo Bend was mismanaged and that this was a key factor in the flooding along the Sabine River. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties, Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Scott, on behalf of all similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. Traffic Management, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC613316 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover civil penalties, paid rest pay, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, under the Labor Code. Traffic Management offers traffic control services. The Company provides services including job surveys, engineering plans, permit negotiation, and traffic control set-ups, as well as retails products including vehicles, traffic signs, channelization devices, barricades, barriers, beacons, fencing, and roadway marking products. The Company is based in Signal Hill, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Tel.: (323) 549 9100 Facsimile: (323) 549 0101 Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com - and - Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM APC 9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4608 Telephone: (323) 857 5900 Facsimile: (310) 275 6301 E-mail: BKokozian@kokoziahlawfirm.com TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under PPPA -------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-01812 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks (a) an injunction requiring Defendant to obtain consent from Michigan subscribers prior to the disclosure of their Personal Reading Information as required by the Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), (b) actual damages, including disgorgement, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, and (c) costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to PPPA. The Defendant allegedly sold personal information about Plaintiff's magazine subscription to list brokers, including for example, NextMark, Inc., which in turn sold her information to telemarketers and other aggressive advertisers. As a result, Ms. Taylor is being inundated with a barrage of unwanted junk mail and telephone solicitations. Trusted Media Brands publishes cooking, gardening, and country lifestyle magazines across digital, print, and social media. The company's brands include magazines include Best Health, a healthy lifestyle magazine for Canadian women; More of Our Canada, a companion magazine; online content and social media communities; EnrichU, an online learning portal; Taste of Home Online Cooking School that features videos with step-by-step recipe instructions, cooking tricks, and kitchen advice from culinary experts; and Stop & Drop Diet Online Course that serves as a companion to the new book. The Company is based in White Plains, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com UBER: Prepares for Lengthy Trial in Drivers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that don't expect a settlement in a closely watched lawsuit against the ridesharing company Uber that contends drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, a New York attorney says. Richard J. Reibstein, a partner at Pepper Hamilton who has been following class action lawsuits filed against Uber over the past year, says the company is readying itself for a lengthy trial, which is scheduled to begin this summer in San Francisco federal court. If the court classifies drivers as employees instead of independent contractors, Mr. Reibstein says the company will face a major liability issue. "That's because employees are entitled to a full array of statutory benefits," including those earmarked in safety and wage laws, he told Legal Newsline. And such a liability would hurt the company's ability to provide profits for its investors, he said. In some class action lawsuits involving the independent contractor designation, the focus has been on minimum-wage laws, while others focus on worker overtime. In the Uber case, a key issue might be unpaid expenses for owning and maintaining a vehicle, Mr. Reibstein said, adding that the federal lawsuit before the Northern District of California also includes claims that drivers are entitled to the full amount of tips they receive. "There are a number of cases around the country dealing with Uber," Mr. Reibstein said, noting that many different kinds of companies have been subjected to independent contractor misclassification lawsuits in recent years, including food manufacturers and companies involved in the home health care industry. "Independent contracting has proliferated," he said. "People want independent income and to be their own bosses. And many business models are built on hiring independent contractors." In the Uber case in California, Judge Edward Chen has allowed plaintiffs to pursue reimbursements based on the Internal Revenue Service's mileage rate. The Uber business model uses cell phone apps to quickly match those customers who need rides with nearby company drivers and to provide fast, convenient service. Mr. Reibstein stressed that to help avoid litigation problems resulting from the use of independent contractors, companies can effectively practice prevention through a proprietary process called IC Diagnostics. "Companies need to examine the manner in which they structure independent contractor relationships to determine where they have maximum compliance with state and federal independent contractor laws," he said. Under such a scenario, some independent contractors might be reclassified as W-2 employees to better ensure legal compliance. "IC Diagnostics is intended to accomplish that result -- minimize the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed and, if filed, minimize the likelihood of the lawsuit succeeding," Mr. Reibstein said. UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Case Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former officers. On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period, alleged violations, and relief sought. On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety with no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Appellant filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate briefing was filed in the third quarter 2015. Umpqua Holdings Corporation has two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank (the "Bank") and Umpqua Investments, Inc. ("Umpqua Investments"). VERBOTEN: Sued Over "Sexually Hostile" Work Environment ------------------------------------------------------- Simone Wilson, writing for Williamsburg-Greenpoint Patch, reports that sixteen former employees of the relatively new Williamsburg night (and day) club Verboten, housed in an old metal shop on North 11th Street at Kent, are suing the club's owners, husband and wife John Perez and Jen Schiffer, for creating a "sexually hostile work environment" and otherwise "committing a staggering number of unlawful acts against their employees." The 85-page class-action lawsuit was filed on March 15 in Brooklyn Federal Court. Verboten's owners did not immediately return calls and emails from Patch seeking their side of the story. In the suit, former employees go into disturbing detail about Ms. Schiffer's alleged management style. Ms. Schiffer is accused of constantly gabbing to subordinates about her sex life; pressuring them to have sex with her and her boyfriend, Verboten employee Dylan Schwartz; turning a blind eye and even "retaliating" when Mr. Schwartz sexually harassed them; withholding their pay; stealing their tips; and heaps of other sick stuff. Former cashier and ticket girl Catherine Papamanousakis, for example, said Mr. Schwartz touched her boobs and lower back, and said stuff like: "if you want a good sexual experience, I am a master at eating pussy"; "Why haven't you called me for sex yet?"; and "who's f*cking you so good that you don't need to call me?" Perhaps more disturbing still is the lawsuit's claim that "the way in which Ms. Schiffer treats her employees is not inconsistent with the way she treats the patrons of Verboten." Ms. Schiffer and her boyfriend, Mr. Schwartz, are accused of making sexually degrading comments behind customers' backs, including calling "dibs" on certain females and bragging about exploits from the night before. The former employees also claim Verboten management has been "filling premium liquor bottles with well liquor in order to trick customers." Finally, one of the most damning allegations against Ms. Schiffer, verbatim from the lawsuit: Defendants' penchant for unlawful conduct and discrimination towards protected groups is also demonstrated in that they systematically discriminate against their Black customers. Indeed, when Plaintiff Darrin Morda booked a private event that was attended by a number of Black patrons, Ms. Schiffer became furious and screamed at Mr. Morda: "What are all these Black people doing here?" "You cannot book a . . . Black people party!" Mr. Morda repeatedly objected, but Ms. Schiffer insisted that Black customers would not be permitted to hold and attend private events at Verboten, in part because she purportedly told Brooklyn's Community Board No. 1: "We are not having Black people parties!" Ms. Schiffer and Ms. Perez founded the Verboten brand more than a decade ago as a pop-up techno festival held in event spaces throughout NYC. Their opening of a permanent outpost near Williamsburg's booming Wythe Avenue in 2014 symbolized a party-kid renaissance/apocalypse for the neighborhood, depending which side of the YIMBY/NIMBY debate you were on. The New York Times called it a "dance club with a Teutonic theme and a strong European lean" -- and, on a larger scale, a jewel in the crown of the "newly anointed night life concourse" in northwest Williamsburg, aka Little Berlin. The indie blog Free Williamsburg, meanwhile, called it a "douchey velvet-rope sh*tf*ck Jersey Shore cologne tourist trap electro dance club." In a video interview for Red Bull's YouTube channel (embedded below), Ms. Schiffer said: "We're trying to bring new culture to this city that means so much to us. And so I feel totally lucky. I hope when I look back on it, I'm part of a really great music movement at a really amazing time." In addition to this new class-action suit, Ms. Schiffer and Ms. Perez are reportedly fighting public allegations levied in January by 14 of Verboten's investors. One of these investors, Brian Edward McGuinness, accused Verboten's owner(s) of "significant mismanagement and outright fraud" in a letter sent to other Verboten investors and employees, according to Vice. The situation would best be mitigated, he wrote, by removing Ms. Schiffer and Mr. Perez and fostering "a more positive work culture" under new management. VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Violated Mass. Law, "Frazier" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Terrance Frazier, Harold Gay, Joseph Monroe, & Eric Lott, Sr., on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Vertical Holdings Unlimited, LLC & Lisa Bythewood, the Defendants, Case No. 1684CV00811 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages for compensable working time, non-discretionary treble damages and attorney fees, relief as Law and Justice requires, including interest and costs, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws. Vertical Holdings is a Florida limited liability company with a principal place of business in Odessa Florida, which performs package delivery and/or courier services in Massachusetts, and hires Massachusetts individuals as employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bace. Esq. BACE LAW GROUP. LLC PO Box 9316 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: 508-922-8328 E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com - and - John R. Bita III, Esq. BITA LAW 35 India Street. 3rd Fl Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-538 5407 E-mail: jrh@bitalaw.com VISA INC: Judge Won't Halt "Liability Shift" Practices for Now -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup denied B & R Supermarket, Inc., and Grove Liquors LLC's request for preliminary injunction against credit card issuers, Visa Inc., Mastercard International Inc., et al. The motion seeks to enjoin -- nationwide -- implementation of the so-called Liability Shift on a class basis. Judge Alsup said the Plaintiffs' motion is "so deficient that it would be a monumental waste of resources to require the eighteen defendants to respond and oppose the motion." In this antitrust action, a set of markets in Florida is suing all of the major credit card companies and major banks in America alleging a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by reason of a joint imposition upon merchants of a so-called "Liability Shift" effective last October, whereby merchants are allegedly more liable for fraudulent credit card transactions than before the shift. To avoid the greater liability, the merchants allegedly must install new EMV Reader equipment and get the gear "certified." The alleged bugaboo is that defendants have dragged their feet in granting certifications so it is impossible, according to the complaint, to avoid the extra charge-backs. "There is no need to incur the expense of opposing this motion. These resources should be saved for the merits," Judge Alsup said. He clarified that his order is without prejudice to a renewed motion on a proper record. "This order in no way blesses the challenged combination and in no way rules that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief (except to note that a Florida business is unlikely to have any claim for relief under California's Cartwright Act)," he said. Judge Alsup added that the hearing set for April 21, 2016, be converted to a case management conference at 11 a.m. Not less than seven days prior, counsel is directed to submit a joint case management conference statement not to exceed ten pages. Judge Alsup also reminded all defendants: "Please do not pursue any Rule 12 motion based upon documents for which you will seek judicial notice. Almost always, as the defense bar usually presents them, these are ill-advised, improper, and a waste of resources. These should be brought only on a Rule 56 summary judgment motion, perhaps an early one but nevertheless as a summary judgment motion. This subject may be addressed at the April 21 case management conference." A copy of Judge Alsup's March 16 Order is available at http://bit.ly/1MyGZdZfrom Leagle.com. The case is B & R SUPERMARKET, INC. v. VISA, INC., No. C 16-01150 WHA. (N.D. Cal.). Other defendants are: American Express Company; Discover Financial Services; Bank of America, N.A.; Barclays Bank Delaware; Capital One Financial Corporation; Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; PNC Bank, N.A.; USAA Savings Bank; U.S. Bancorp, N.A.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; EMVCo, LLC; JCB Co., LTD; and Unionpay, a Chinese bank association. Visa has tapped as counsel: Robert John Vizas, Esq. Sharon D. Mayo, Esq. Arnold & Porter LLP 10th Floor Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Tel: 415.471.3311 E-mail: bob.vizas@aporter.com sharon.mayo@aporter.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Leonard" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Drew Leonard, et al. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00447, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00840-CRB to the proceeding. The transfer is pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015. The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding available to practitioners and the public. The cases in the litigation primarily concern certain 2.0 and 3.0 liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software designed to engage emissions controls only when the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Colin Yuhl, Esq. Eric F. Yuhl, Esq. YUHL CARR LLP 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 550 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (310) 827-2800 Facsimile: (310) 827-4200 E-mail: cayuhl@yuhlcarr.com eyuhl@yuhlcarr.com - and - Michael H. Artinian, Esq. BRIDGFORD GLEASON AND ARTINIAN 26 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 831-6611 Facsimile: (949) 831-6622 E-mail: artinian@bridgfordlaw.com - and - Michael J. Kent, Esq. Patrick McNicholas, Esq. MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-1582 Facsimile: (310) 475-7871 E-mail: mjk@mcnicholaslaw.com mel@mcnicholaslaw.com - and - Richard Kevin Bridgford, Esq. BRIDGFORD AND GLEASON 85 Enterprise, Suite 470 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 831-6611 Facsimile: (949) 831-6622 E-mail: richard.bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olney" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Eric Olney v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08347, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00838-CRB to the proceeding. The transfer is pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015. The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding available to practitioners and the public. The cases in the litigation primarily concern certain 2.0 and 3.0 liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software designed to engage emissions controls only when the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arshan Amiri, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: arshan@amirifirm.com - and - Jason Aaron Whooper, Esq. JASON WHOOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 957-5169 Facsimile: (619) 717-2111 E-mail: Jason@JasonWhooper.Com - and - John H. Gomez, Esq. Deborah S. Dixon, Esq. GOMEZ IAGMIN TRIAL ATTORNEYS 655 W Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-3490 Facsimile: (619) 237-3496 E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com Ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com WABASHA COUNTY, WA: Intends to Defend "Safe Driving Class" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Rogers, writing for Winona Post, reports that after a judge's decision in February, Wabasha County and the cities of Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City could be sued by thousands of people for a total of nearly $450,000. On February 18, Judge Robert Birnbaum ordered that individuals who participated in the county's "safe driving class" could join a class-action lawsuit against the county and the three cities. The class was ruled unlawful in 2014 by Wabasha County District Court Judge James Fabian. For years, the Wabasha County Sheriff's Office and police departments in Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City operated a safe driving class as an alternative to state traffic citations. Normally, when drivers are cited for traffic violations, local officers write a ticket, the charge is tracked on drivers' records, and part or all of the fine collected by local authorities is turned over to the state. Instead, from 2003-2014, Wabasha County deputies gave thousands of drivers an option: get a ticket on their record and pay a stiff fine to the state, or pay the county a smaller amount to take the Wabasha County Safe Driving Class. The county charged $125 per class. Police departments from the three cities' would later join the program. Over the years, they collected around $450,000, according to attorney for the plaintiffs Erick Kaardal. So-called traffic diversion programs such as the Wabasha County Safe Driving Class have been offered by scores of local governments across the state for over a decade. State authorities have been denouncing them for nearly as long. Even though the Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion in 2003 stating that cities and counties lacked the legal authority to conduct such programs and the Minnesota State Auditor issued admonitions against the programs in 2008 and 2013, dozens of cities and counties across the state still offer them. Wright County offers one called Drive Wright, for instance. Around $600,000 was collected through such programs across the state in 2012, according to the State Auditor. Wabasha County only got rid of its program in 2014 after the court ordered it to stop. Wabasha County and the cities of Wabasha, Plainview, and Lake City ignored warnings from the state and made citizens believe that these programs were lawful when they knew or should have known they were illegal, Mr. Kaardal wrote in the initial complaint filed in 2014. The suit asks for the governments to give citizens back the money they were charged for the class. Judge Birnbaum's order in February was a partial victory for Mr. Kardaal and his clients: a handful of citizens who took part in the safe driving class and the local citizen group the Association for Government Accountability (AGA), which filed the suit. The decision means that over 3,000 people who participated in the safe driving class will be able to join the lawsuit and demand refunds for fees they paid. If Judge Birnbaum had not granted the case class-action status, the plaintiffs' case could have been ruined because their small, individual claims -- each person only paid $125 per class --would not have been worth the cost of litigation, Mr. Kaardal explained. However, Mr. Kaardal and his clients had been hoping to make the lawsuit a statewide case. Mr. Kaardal had asked Judge Birnbaum to allow citizens in dozens of counties and cities across Minnesota where similar traffic diversion programs are operated to join in one big class-action suit against all of those governments. Judge Birnbaum rejected that request. Still, Mr. Kaardal hopes the case will have statewide significance. In an interview, he said the point of the suit is not so much to get citizens their $125 dollars back, but rather to create a financial disincentive for governments to operate such programs in the future. If Wabasha County is forced to return all of the money it got through the program, maybe governments across the state will think twice about their own programs, Mr. Kaardal explained. Ideally, the state would have sued these local governments itself -- after all, it is the state whose traffic laws and fines are being circumvented -- but state authorities were too timid to do so, Mr. Kaardal stated. "The AGA is committed to hunting down every one of these sheriffs and police chiefs," Mr. Kaardal said of law enforcement leaders in places like Wright County, Minn., where similar traffic diversion programs are still being operated. "Minnesotans don't want to live in this world where law enforcement officers violate the law," he added. For their part, Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City deny any wrongdoing. In a memo filed this month, attorneys for the cities refuted Mr. Kaardal's claims, arguing that the diversion programs were a good faith effort by the cities and part of the cities' prosecutorial discretion to choose whether to issue formal traffic citations. Attorney for Wabasha County Jason Kuboushek also disputed Mr. Kaardal's claims in an interview. "They [the plaintiffs] have to show that they did not receive a benefit from the class, and the county thinks the fact that they did not receive a criminal citation and didn't have their insurance increase is a benefit," he said. Early this month, attorneys for the cities asked Judge Birnbaum to reconsider his decision to grant the plaintiffs class-action status. In a March 3 memo to Judge Birnbaum, attorney Jessica Schwie was pointed in her criticism of the decision. She explained it was unfair to lump the cities in with Wabasha County because, unlike the county, their programs were never ruled illegal by a judge. The court's class-action order assumes that the programs were similarly illegal, and that, she argued, "is not only erroneous, but is a manifest injustice that deprives the city defendants of their rights of due process." In a March 4 letter to Judge Birnbaum, Mr. Kuboushek also asked the judge to reconsider, arguing that the proper resolution would be for the county to hand over the money it got from the safe driving class to the state -- where the fines would have gone, if the county had issued criminal citations -- instead of paying the money back to the plaintiffs. Judge Birnbaum has not responded to the defendants' requests yet. "Wabasha County was disappointed by the decision but we're ready to defend the suit moving forward," Mr. Kuboushek said. "This is just the first step in this litigation," he added. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01135-JHS (E.D. Penn., March 10, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan & Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years, in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates a retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. Philip Sholtz, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932-3232 Facsimile: (314) 932-3233 E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com phil@thedriscollfirm.com WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Violated FLSA, "Amador" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Mario Miguel Leyva Amador, and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2016- 006090-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy offers specialty pharmacy services in the United States and Puerto Rico. The company distributes specialty medications and supplies, including injectable medications and specialty biotech therapies that are used to treat chronic, life-threatening, or rare conditions, such as cancer, Crohn's disease, growth hormone disorders, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and others. The company is based in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com WHITE WAY: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yonjan" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Sunmaya Yonjan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. White Way Threading LLC, a/k/a Threading Station, the Defendants, Case No. 702881/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Queens, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, costs and attorney's fees, declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). White Way Threading is a New York for-profit Limited Liability Company. It is engaged in the beauty salon business in the New- York Tri-State Area. The Defendant owned and operated approximately 35 or more locations including a location at 850 8th Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 742 2000 WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Casey Smith, writing for Tulsa World, reports that Goldberg Law PC is investigating claims of potential misrepresentations by Williams Partners L.P., according to a press release from the California-based law firm that specializes in securities class action suits and shareholder rights litigation. The investigation focuses on whether Williams Partners and its officers violated securities laws by issuing misleading information to investors, according to the release. Last spring, Williams announced a deal under which Williams Cos. would purchase all publicly held Williams Partners common units. The May 13 announcement was, according to the release, made without disclosing that Williams Cos. management was also in discussions with Energy Transfer Equity regarding a proposed acquisition that would require Williams Cos. to terminate its merger with Williams Partners. The law firm is inviting any investors who acquired units of Williams Partners between May 13 and June 19 to contact the firm and join a class action suit. June 19 was the final day that markets were open before Williams Cos. announced June 21 it had turned down a merger offer from ETE. Brian Schall, an attorney with Goldberg Law, said that at this time the firm has a "no-comment policy" on the investigation. A spokesman for Williams said that it is the company's policy not to discuss litigation. A class action from Goldberg wouldn't be the first. On March 7, Michael Erber filed a class action lawsuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma with Williams Cos., Williams Partners, Williams Partners GP LLC, Williams CEO Alan Armstrong and Williams CFO Don Chappel listed as defendants. Mr. Erber alleges that during the period May 13 and June 19 he and other members of the class action suit were duped into purchasing common units of Williams Partners at artificially inflated prices by material misrepresentations related to the agreement that was later forged between Williams Cos. and ETE. In January, John Bumgarner filed a class action complaint in the Northern District Court of Oklahoma against Williams Cos. and ETE alleging that material misrepresentations and omissions from the defendants warrant the issuance of a preliminary and a permanent injunction on the merger. Williams Cos. and ETE filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Bumgarner's suit on Feb. 19. Mr. Bumgarner's response to that motion is due by March 21. YAHOO: E-mail Snooping Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Ethan Bardon, writing for siliconbeat, reports that Yahoo has agreed to stop snooping into the emails of non-customers -- until it has the correspondence on its servers. The agreement came out of the company's settlement in a class-action lawsuit. On March 15, a U.S. District Court judge in San Jose gave preliminary approval to the settlement between Yahoo, and four individuals and the class the plaintiffs represented. The four were not Yahoo Mail customers, and claimed that Yahoo's interception, scanning and storage of their correspondence with Yahoo customers violated their right to privacy and broke California wiretap law. Yahoo, like Google, scans email content in order to sell ads targeted at individual people. The case did not reveal if and how Yahoo uses the contents of non-customers' emails. Yahoo's terms of service allow the firm to scan and analyze emails between both parties to a correspondence. But of course when one party is not a Yahoo Mail user, they're unable to consent to the terms. In an earlier ruling, Judge Lucy Koh had thrown out the privacy claim, leaving only the illegal-interception issue. Under the settlement terms, Yahoo "will now only analyze emails for content when these emails are no longer in transit and after these emails reach a Yahoo Mail user's inbox or outbox," Judge Koh's ruling said. Because alleged violation of privacy was taken off the table, the settlement addressed only Yahoo's information harvesting from in-transit emails; the firm is free to continue scanning and analyzing non-customers' emails, once they arrive in a customer's Yahoo Mail box. Once the settlement is finalized -- a final approval hearing is set for Aug. 25 -- Yahoo is to adopt new email architecture reflecting the agreed-upon protocol, and keep it in place for three years. In the settlement, the company said it would continue to use the new architecture after the three years, Judge Koh's ruling said. The preliminary approval follows nearly two and a half years of legal wrangling. Plaintiffs in October 2013 had filed six class- action lawsuits against Yahoo over essentially the same allegations, and later that year the court consolidated them into one suit. Yahoo has agreed not to oppose any request to the court that it pay plaintiffs' legal fees, up to $4 million. Plaintiffs receive no money under the settlement, but the settlement would not preclude future monetary claims, Judge Koh said in her ruling. In 2014, Google came before Judge Koh over similar lawsuits about collection of email contents, and Judge Koh refused to allow a class-action lawsuit to go ahead. Google ended up in a confidential settlement with plaintiffs, news website Ars Technica reported. Yahoo did not respond immediately to a request for comment. ********* 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 * * *