/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 65 Headlines 7-ELEVEN: Class Action Mulled Over Ethnic Franchisee Selection ADVOCATE HEALTH: Benefit Plan Doesn't Meet ERISA Exemption AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIAL: Violated IWC Order, "Alvarez" Suit Claims ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over False Parmesan Cheese Ads ALTRIA GROUP: Jury Returned Verdict for PM USA in "Donovan" Case ALTRIA GROUP: Court Says PM USA Violated Mass. Consumer Laws ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Lights Case Set for Trial Thru March 31 AMARIN CORP: Settles FDA Dispute Over Fish-Oil Drug Marketing AMEREN CORPORATION: Missouri Municipal Taxes Case Still Pending AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement ANDRIES & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Marks" Suit Says APIGEE CORPORATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims APIGEE CORPORATION: Faces "Widlund" Securities Class Action ATLANTIC COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct. BAXTER INT'L: Says Class Suit Settled Below Insurance Limits BSONYC CORP: Fails to Pay OT, "Limehouse" Suit Says CACH LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection CANADA: RCMP Class Action Certification Hearing Set for May CARRIER CORP: Faces Asbestosis Class Action in Connecticut CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: 4 Shareholder Class Suits Filed in Pa. COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Transferred to M.D. COST PLUS: Violated Cal. Labor Code & CLRA, "Grady" Suit Claims DOLMEN GROUP: Faces "Granja" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DPL CONSTRUCTION: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Settlement DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Settlement DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Vinotemp Case Negotiate Settlement DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Talk Deal DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commenced in "Thomas" Case EDISON SOLAR: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Zhu" Suit Claims ELEGANT DESSERT NY: "Ordaz" Labor Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y, Brooklyn ESA MANAGEMENT: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination ESSEX PORTFOLIO: "Foster" Action Still Pending in N.D. Cal. EVERBANK: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vathana" Case Settlement FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Amonoo" Suit in N.J. FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pile Up FLINT, MI: Independent Panel Releases Findings on Water Crisis FREEWAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Bonilla" Suit Says FULL CIRCLE FINANCIAL: Violated FDC Act, "Shedler" Suit Claims G&R MARINE LABOR: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case GENERAL MOTORS: No Verdict Yet in 2nd Ignition Switch Case GEO GROUP: EEOC Findings Win Appellate Court Support GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends Against "Freeman" Lawsuit HESS CORP: Court Reinstates Heating Oil Adulteration Claims INNER VALLEY TRANSPORT: "Alex" Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct. INTEREXCHANGE INC: Magistrate Judge Rules in Au Pair Program Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $502MM Verdict in Hip Implant MDL JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEM: Appellate Court Sustains Demurrer L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Violated Magnuson-Moss Act, "Pittman" Claims L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 3 EoTech Class Actions Filed in Missouri L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending LAS VEGAS SANDS: "Fosbre" Action in Preliminary Stage LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Najib" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Pension Plan LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Faces UA Local Fund Securities Suit LAIBCO LLC: Faces "Menjivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage LERNER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cisneros" Suit Says LINDE CORPORATION: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Trevorah" Suit Claims LITHIA MOTORS: Tendered Defense of Class Actions to Auto Makers LOVE GRACE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Juice Product Ads LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Turner" Files Suit Over Defective Flooring LYFT INC: Judge Questions Adequacy of Class Action Settlement MARLTON 73: Faces "Sanford" Suit Over Wrongful Termination MDL 2058: 2nd Cir. Vacates Order Denying Flanagan's Fee Request MERCADOLIBRE INC: Parties Ordered to Produce Evidence MI LLC: Texas Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Dewan" MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Parwani" Class Suit in S.D. Cal. Ct. MINNESOTA: Status Update on June 6 in "Jensen" Suit MIZUHO BANK: Ill. Judge Threatens to Move Bitcoin Suit to Calif. MOM BRANDS: Sued in Illinois Over Misbranded Oatmeal MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending MOUSTACHE COFFEE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Scheme MRI INTERNATIONAL: Nevada Judge Certifies Class in Ponzi Case MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated FLSA & NJMWL, "Houssam" Suit Claims MTC NOVO: Set to Take Over G4S amid Inmate Abuse Class Action MULTI MOBILE IMAGING: Violated NYLL, "Cullen" Suit Claims NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Action Still Pending NANTKWEST INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sudunagunta" Suit Claims NASDAQ, INC: Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit Still Pending NASDAQ, INC: Provides Update on Facebook IPO Litigation NASDAQ, INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Providence Case NASDAQ, INC: Oral Argument Held in 2nd Circuit Appeal NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Debtor Proves Loan to be Unconscionable NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Settlement in "Good" Suit Wins Final Approval NDO AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Juni" Suit Says NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Settles Meningitis Class Suit for $10.5M NEW GENERATION DONUTS: Ex-Employees Fail to Win Conditional Cert. NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Retirees' COLA Suit NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Suit Over Infiniti SUVs NQ MOBILE: May 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set NU SKIN: Reached Settlement of Securities Class Action OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Data, "Mares" Suit Says OHIO: Two Bills Against "Tampon Tax" Pending Amid Class Action PATRIOT SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Arrieta" Suit Says PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Series Windows PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Settles Mask Kickback Claims for $34.8MM PIXAR: Ordered to Hand Over Ex-GC Emails in "No-Poach" Case PRA GROUP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Litigation PRIMERO AUTO: "Carvajal" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Violated Labor Code, "Garcia" Suit Claims R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in "Soffer" RESTORATION HARDWARE: Justice Dismisses Class Member's Appeal RW INSTALLATION: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA SABAH INTERNATIONAL: "Correa" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations SANTA FE NATURAL: "Gudmundson" Suit Seeks Damages Under UDTPA SEMPRA ENERGY: 83 Suits Filed v. SoCalGas Over Leak SHAKE SHACK: Faces "Vidal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SHANK CONCRETE: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA SKECHERS USA: Says Global Accord in Final Stages of Documentation SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Fortin" Suit Over Wrongful Termination SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: "Harrison" Suit Moved to E.D.N.C. SOUTHERN COMPANY: Court Approved Stipulated Order of Dismissal STANCORP FINANCIAL: 4 Suits Consolidated in Multnomah Court STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Suit STS CONSULTING SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Lopez" Suit Claims SUSHIN EXPRESS: "Loor" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA TARGET CORP: Faces "Hara" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Ads TARGET CORP: Faces "Aliano" Suit in Ill. Over Misbranded Oatmeal TC PIPELINES: Still Defends ERS Class Action in Delaware TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Still Pending TGI FRIDAY'S: Plaintiff Must Prove Injury in Drink Price Case TGI FRIDAY'S: Class Certification in Drink Price Suit Reversed THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Law Graduate Loses Job-Data Suit THUMBTACK INC: Violated FCRA and UCL, "Rhom" Suit Claims TINLEY PARK: "Stuckly" Files Suit Over Zoning Provisions TRANSOCEAN LTD: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Section 14(a) Claim TRICON AMERICAN: Violates Lease Contract, "Hernandez" Suit Says TYSON FOODS: Class-Action Litigators Laud Supreme Court Ruling UBER TECHNOLOGIES: French Court Upholds Geolocalization UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in N.J. Ct. UNITED FABRICS: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Wrongful Termination UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Wrongful Termination UNITED SERVICES: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Attorney Sanctions UNITED STATES: Hamscom Air Base Faces Discrimination Class Action UNITED STATES: Tea Party Activists Laud Court Ruling v. IRS UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Sued Over "Made Proudly In The USA" Ads UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Investors File Securities Class Action UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Dismisses Students' Due Process Suits US OIL FUND: NY Action in Initial Stages for New Defendants US OIL FUND: Canada Actions in Initial Stages US OIL FUND: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed District Court Ruling VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cornell" Suit Says VISA INC: Judge Denies Retailers' Preliminary Injunction Request VOLKSWAGEN AG: FTC Files Suit Over False "Clean Diesel" Claims VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Until April 21 to Draw Up Emissions Solution VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dealers Meet with German Execs Amid Class Actions VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kentucky AG Files Suit Over Emissions Scheme WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Data Breach Action in California WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Incident Suit Postponed WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Alaska High Court Decision Expected in Spring WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Facing Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger WS BADCOCK: "Harp" Class Action Moved to M.D. Fla. Ct. WWE NETWORK: Technology Shift May Spur Class Action XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Violated FLSA, "Valverde" Suit Claims YAHIRO INC: Faces "Guo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage YAHOO! INC: Faces "Klingensmith" Suit in Ohio Court ZYNGA INC: $23M Securities Class Action Settlement Has Final OK * Justice Roberts Raises Thresholds for Class Action Plaintiffs * Tobacco Cos. Can Face Punitive Damages in Individual Cases ********* 7-ELEVEN: Class Action Mulled Over Ethnic Franchisee Selection -------------------------------------------------------------- James Robertson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a Sydney lawyer has alleged 7-Eleven employed a de facto policy of ethnically screening its franchisees and, with ANZ, luring them with "easy" loans they could not repay. Mass underpayment of employees and fabrication of payroll records within 7-Eleven franchises has been exposed by Fairfax Media and the ABC. But in an unpublished submission to a Senate Inquiry, Sydney lawyer Stewart Levitt alleges the company practiced at least a "de facto ethnic selection of franchisees" in order to select store owners less likely to blow the whistle on employment practices. Mr. Levitt is a partner at Levitt Robinson and represents about 30 7-Eleven franchisees and has announced an intended class action against the company and ANZ bank. His submission says the company's franchisees -- and employees -- are "overwhelmingly" migrants mainly from countries on the Indian sub-continent with weak labour laws. "Having addressed rallies of around 100 franchisees at a time [. . .] it is rare to see a white face, it is counter-intuitive to believe that this was not a deliberate policy," Mr. Levitt alleges. The submission also alleges that "easy loans", principally from ANZ, helped "lure" franchisees into agreements. The submission claims that ANZ extended franchisees credit to the value of up to 70 per cent of a store's cost when typically only 30 per cent would be offered to non-franchise businesses. "Unsuitable loans were made to franchisees, of whom the vast majority had no relevant experience," the submission reads. The submission notes a "substantial number" of cases of women with young children and no work experiences co-securing loans of up to 100 per cent of a store's value by providing personal guarantees against their homes. "Franchisees and their families are each now 'on the hook' for hundreds of thousands of dollars having had no demonstrable capacity to repay," the submission reads. Franchisees were left struggling to service the debts, the submissions allege, because the projected profits of the businesses they bought were based on an understatement of wage costs. Financial statements provided to prospective franchisees were based on an average profit and loss of 7-Eleven franchises. These figures were inflated, Mr. Levitt alleges, because "few if any" stores were paying award wages. Mr. Levitt says 7-Eleven facilitated the loans and often entered into three-way agreements whereby the company guaranteed loans against default by its franchisees. Potential franchisees must pay a $5000 application fee and are "screened, interviewed and approved" by the company's head office. A spokesman for 7-Eleven declined to comment on the allegations because the company had not seen the submission. The inquiry's full, 350-page report, titled "A National Disgrace", was tabled to parliament this month. The report said claims by company senior management that head office was unaware of underpayment "defy belief". Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill, who is on the Senate Education and Employment References Committee, said she had been contacted by confidential informants about ethnic selection practices. "They're coming from a culture where payment of wages is a different to what is expected in Australia," Ms. O'Neill said. Back-pay claims from employees are expected to reach as much as $50 million. Ms. O'Neill said she also believed some 7-Eleven franchisees had acted as brokers to encourage members of their ethnic communities into buying stores. Ms. O'Neill said at least one employee was told by a franchisee that complaining about underpayment would "bring shame upon the subcontinent". ANZ did not respond to written questions by deadline. ADVOCATE HEALTH: Benefit Plan Doesn't Meet ERISA Exemption ---------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the opinion of the district court in the case captioned, MARIA STAPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK, AN ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-1368 (7th Cir.). On appeal, the case explores the question whether a plan established by a church-affiliated organization, such as a hospital, is also exempt from ERISA's reach. In the Decison dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/wk3IUifrom Leagle.com, Judge Rovner concluded that Advocate's benefit plan does not meet the definition of an ERISA church-plan exemption. The plaintiffs, Maria Stapleton, Judith Lukas, Sharon Roberts, and Antoine Fox are former and current Advocate employees with vested claims to benefits under the Advocate retirement plan. They have brought their complaint as a proposed class action on behalf of all participants or beneficiaries of the Advocate plan. The plaintiffs allege that Advocate has not maintained its pension plan according to the standards set forth by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq., and thus has breached its fiduciary duty and harmed the plan's participants. The plaintiffs argue in the alternative that if Advocate successfully evades liability under the church plan exemption, that this provision of ERISA is void as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on state establishment of religion. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Advocate plan is a benefits plan subject to the regulations of ERISA, or in the alternative, a declaration that a church plan exemption is unconstitutional. They also sought an injunction requiring Advocate to reform the plan to comply with ERISA's requirements and an award of civil penalties, and damages. Advocate moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing that its plan falls within the church plan exemption. The district court denied the defendants' motion, holding that the plan "is not entitled to ERISA's church plan exemption as a matter of law" because the statutory definition required a church plan to be established by a church. AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIAL: Violated IWC Order, "Alvarez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Alvarez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. Limited Partnership, and Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. BC614586 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages under the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders and California Labor Code (CLC). Air Liquide Industrial distributes bulk industrial gases throughout the United States. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Houston, Texas. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP operates as a subsidiary of Air Liquide America Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Gould, Esq. Aarin Seif, Esq. GOULD & ASSOCIATES 17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 669 2850 Facsimile: (714) 544 0800 E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over False Parmesan Cheese Ads --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Lang, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., an Idaho corporation; and Supervalu, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 2016-CH-03881 (Ill. Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants from misrepresenting that "Essential Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" contains "100%" Parmesan cheese, when, in fact, at least 8.8% of the Product consists of fillers and preservatives. Albertsons Companies, Inc., an Idaho corporation, operates a chain of grocery stores and does business under various names including Jewel-Osco, Safeway, Vons, and Albertsons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq. Matthew C. De Re., Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com amy@attorneyzim.com jordan@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorney.zim.com ALTRIA GROUP: Jury Returned Verdict for PM USA in "Donovan" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 in the "Donovan" medical monitoring class action, a Massachusetts jury on February 10, 2016, returned a verdict in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded, which the court denied. The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice. One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against PM USA. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. Trial began January 26, 2016 and will take place in multiple phases. Phase I will address liability. To the extent a Phase II is necessary, it would be tried to the court and address common questions of remedies and costs. In July 2015, both parties filed various motions relating to Phase I, including motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes. ALTRIA GROUP: Court Says PM USA Violated Mass. Consumer Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria 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 in the "Aspinall" Lights/Ultra Lights action, the trial court on February 19, 2016, issued its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." The court found that (1) Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") violated Massachusetts consumer protection laws in marketing Marlboro "Lights" and (2) plaintiffs proved that class members were economically injured, but did not prove a specific measure of damages. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages of $25 per class member, for a total of $4.9 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In Aspinall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in August 2004 affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in October 2015 and concluded in November 2015. On December 18, 2015, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Lights Case Set for Trial Thru March 31 ------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 as of January 26, 2016, five Engle progeny cases, no individual smoking and health case and one "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), are set for trial through March 31, 2016. One medical monitoring class action against PM USA is currently in trial. Cases against other companies in the tobacco ndustry are also scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of January 26, 2016, a total of 11 such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. AMARIN CORP: Settles FDA Dispute Over Fish-Oil Drug Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the maker of a prescription fish-oil drug says it has reached a legal settlement that will allow it to promote unapproved uses of its drug for lowering fat levels. The closely watched case between Amarin Corporation PLC and the Food and Drug Administration could strengthen the drug industry's hand in the ongoing debate over promoting drugs for uses that have not been declared safe and effective by regulators. But the FDA said on March 8 the settlement is "specific to this particular case and situation," and did not mark a new legal precedent. "The FDA is responsible for protecting the American public by helping to ensure medical products meet the rigorous legal standards for safety and effectiveness for their intended uses," the agency said in a statement. Still, pharmaceutical experts said companies would likely pursue more aggressive legal action against FDA, in light of the settlement. "We would expect companies throughout the country to ask courts to provide the same legal reasoning," said attorney John Fleder, who was not involved in the case. In August, Amarin won a surprise victory over the FDA when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the company had a First Amendment right to distribute journal articles about unapproved indications for Vascepa. Amarin said in a statement on March 8 that the FDA agreed to be bound by the earlier court decision. Drugmakers are not allowed to advertise drugs for "off-label" uses, or those that have not been cleared by the FDA as safe and effective. But companies' ability to distribute independent materials about their drugs -- such as medical journal articles -- has been subject to years of legal debate centering around the limits of "commercial speech." The FDA approved Vascepa in 2012 for patients with abnormally high levels of triglycerides, a type of fat found in the bloodstream. But the agency rejected a second use that would have allowed the company to market the pill to patients with lower triglycerides who also take statins -- drugs used to lower cholesterol. The agency said the company needed to submit more data on whether lowering triglycerides actually translates into fewer heart problems in those patients. And FDA regulators suggested that distributing information about the alternate use would be illegal. Amarin responded in May with a pre-emptive lawsuit, arguing that FDA efforts to stop the company from sharing "off-label" information would violate the company's free speech protections. In August, Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed, stating the company could "engage in truthful and non-misleading speech" while promoting its drug. Doctors are free to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses, regardless of FDA's prescribing recommendations. Some attorneys cautioned on March 8 that the settlement had "important limitations." "It only applies to Amarin," said Lisa Dwyer. "I don't think we're at a point where it makes sense to extrapolate to other companies." Vascepa is Amarin's only approved product, a prescription strength form of an omega-3 fatty acid found in wild fish. Fish oil is thought to lower heart disease risk, though no definitive studies have yet established that benefit. AMEREN CORPORATION: Missouri Municipal Taxes Case Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corporation, Union Electric Company and Ameren Illinois Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that American continues to face a class action related to Missouri municipal taxes. The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service area, filed a class action lawsuit in November 2011 against Ameren Missouri in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The lawsuit alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to collect and pay gross receipts taxes or license fees on certain revenues. Ameren and Ameren Missouri recorded immaterial liabilities on their respective balance sheets as of December 31, 2015, representing their estimate of taxes and fees due as a result of this lawsuit. The ultimate resolution of any unpaid municipal tax or fees could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of Ameren and Ameren Missouri. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are meritorious and is defending itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its efforts. Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility holding company under PUHCA 2005. AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the District Court's approval of attorneys' fees and its approval of the settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit. "We were a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims," the Company said. "The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by us." On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement was mailed to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members of the class on or before December 6, 2013. On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice. On February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's approval of attorneys' fees and its approval of the settlement agreement. "We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case," the Company said. "We increased our estimated litigation liability for this matter to $21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013 following the passage of the deadline for submission of claims by class members in the lawsuit and based upon information available at that time. However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million in the first quarter of 2014 as additional information became available concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims received. In addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid $7.8 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The estimated litigation liability at December 31, 2015 is $11.1 million. "While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process, the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter described above, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." American Equity Investment Life Holding Company issues fixed annuity and life insurance products through our wholly-owned life insurance subsidiaries, American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company ("American Equity Life"), American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company of New York and Eagle Life Insurance Company ("Eagle Life"). ANDRIES & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Marks" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Destin Ray Marks and Millie Kay Bouget, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Andries and Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Evangeline Home Center, et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00360 (W.D. La., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Andries and Associates, L.L.C. is a dealer of small mobile homes. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq. KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC 311 West University Avenue, Suite A Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 APIGEE CORPORATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron P. Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apigee Corporation; Chet Kapoor; Tim Wan; Bob L. Corey; Neal Dempsey; Promod Haque; William "BJ" Jenkins, Jr.; Edmond Mesrobian; Robert Schwartz; Stuart G. Phillips; Bay Management Company X, LLC; Bay Partners X, LP; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Pacific Crest Securities, a division of Keybanc Capital Markets Inc.; JPM Securities LLC; Nomura Securities International, Inc.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. CIV537817 (Cal. Super., March 17, 2016), alleges that the Registration Statement filed by Apigee related to its initial public offering was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation; at the time of the IPO, the Company's business and financial prospects were not what defendants had led the market to believe they were in the Registration Statement; the price of Apigee common stock plummeted as the market learned, following the IPO, that the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the Registration Statement; and as a result, the price of Apigee common stock has plummeted to trade as low as $5.14 and now trades well below $8.00 per share, or approximately 47% of the price the stock was sold at in the IPO. Apigee Corporation is a California-based software development company that has developed a software platform designed to enable application-programming interface ("API") based digital strategies and business insights for enterprises. Bay Management Company X, LLC and Bay Partners X, LP, are part of a venture capital stake in Apigee and beneficially owned, through partnerships they controlled over 18% of the Company's shares at the time of the IPO. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Pacific Crest Securities, JPM Securities LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc., are investment banking firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the IPO documents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 228-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 - and - James I. Jaconette, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Shawn E. Fields, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 APIGEE CORPORATION: Faces "Widlund" Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- David Widlund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Apigee Corporation, Chet Kapoor, Tim Wan, William D. Jenkins, Jr., Promod Haque, Bob L. Corey, Neal Dempsey, Edmond Mesrobian, Robert Schwartz, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Pacific Crest Securities, JMP Securities LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Bay Partners, LLC, Stuart G. Phillips, Bay Management Company X, LLC, Bay Partners X, LP, and Does 1- 25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CBV537871 (Cal Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover remedies from the harm caused by a materially misleading Registration Statement, pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). According to the complaint, the Defendant's Registration Statement repeatedly touted Apigee's increase in revenues in recent quarters. The Registration Statement, however, allegedly failed to disclose that much of the growth was attributable to large, non- recurring one-time transactions. The Registration Statement further failed to disclose pending competition from Amazon.com, Inc., the company that created a service in which Apigee's entire API cloud infrastructure was running upon. This failure to disclose these material facts rendered the Registration Statement materially misleading. Based on this misleading Registration Statement, the Company and the Underwriter Defendants sold over 5. 1 million shares of the Company's common stock to the public at over $ 16 per share, raising nearly $87 million in gross proceeds ($80.9 million net of underwriting fees and IPO costs). Apigee is a software development company that has developed a software platform designed to enable application programmable interface ("API") based digital strategies and business insights for enterprises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. George C. Aguilar, Esq. Jay N. Razzouk, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 1Y Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com ATLANTIC COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- Wilberto Tavarez, and other similarly situated car detailers v. Atlantic Coast Collision II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Nicholas Peppi, individually, Case No. 16-000659 DIV 08, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The Southern District assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60617-WJZ to the proceeding. Atlantic Coast Collision is engaged in auto body repair business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Carlos A Garcia, Esq. Jason A. Glusman, Esq. WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY FORD, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 847 4800 E-mail: CGarcia1@wickersmith.com jglusman@wickersmith.com BAXTER INT'L: Says Class Suit Settled Below Insurance Limits ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Baxter, certain of its current and former executives or its Board of Directors were sued in various forums for alleged failure to adequately oversee the operations of the company or for allegedly issuing false and misleading statements. Defendants denied all wrongdoing and those matters are now settled or dismissed. A consolidated derivative suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill.) was settled with the plaintiffs in February 2015. Two other derivative actions previously filed in Lake County and Delaware Chancery state courts were dismissed. The company also settled below its insurance limits a consolidated alleged class action pending in the N.D. Ill. The court approved the settlement in January 2016. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a broad portfolio of essential renal and hospital products, including home, acute and in-center dialysis; sterile IV solutions; infusion systems and devices; parenteral nutrition; biosurgery products and anesthetics; and pharmacy automation, software and services. BSONYC CORP: Fails to Pay OT, "Limehouse" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------- Tyreek Limehouse, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bsonyc Corp. d/b/a Beauty of New York; Seok Gyu Kim; any other related entities, Case No. 601844/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March 18, 2016) New York Labor Law. Bsonyc Corp., a New York corporation, sells hair wig products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 CACH LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------- Karen Ferguson, v. Cach, LLC; Mandarich Law Group, LLP; and Does 1-10, Case No. CIV537818 (Cal. Super., March 17, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Cach, LLC is a debt collector and it regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Clausen, Esq. Murray Zatman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MURRAY ZATMAN 818-A College Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Telephone: (707) 542-9700 Cellular: (707) 235-3663 Facsimile: (707) 542-9713 E-mail: MarkToddClausen@yahoo.com CANADA: RCMP Class Action Certification Hearing Set for May ----------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Quan, writing for National Post, reports that Linda Davidson "fell in love" with the idea of becoming a cop in the early 1980s. Over a 27-year career with the RCMP, she rose to the rank of inspector -- the ninth female Mountie to do so -- and landed a gig on the prime minister's protective detail. "I loved every second of being on that detail," she gushed to a local Ontario newspaper, the Huntsville Forester, shortly after retiring in October 2012. "I loved the excitement, I loved the travel, I loved the life that went on around it, the meeting of new people and visits to new countries." But that glowing account masked what she now says was an ugly truth -- that for most of her career, she was subjected to bullying and belittling from male officers that left her mentally anguished and even suicidal. The harassment, she alleges in court papers, took many forms: unwanted grabbing and kissing; crude jokes, including the placement of ketchup-stained tampons in her locker; and constant questioning about her sexual orientation and abilities. "I experienced this treatment irrespective of my detachment, posting, rank or seniority," she wrote in an affidavit. "I never felt that I could rely on senior officers to protect me." The Bracebridge, Ont., mother, who now runs a security firm, is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging systemic gender-based harassment and discrimination in the RCMP -- the second such lawsuit to hit the force in recent years. Though it was filed in Ontario Superior Court last spring, the lawsuit has gone largely unnoticed. But it is definitely on the radar of police brass. In a briefing document sent to the new public safety minister in November and obtained by the National Post under access-to- information laws, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson listed "harassment litigation" as one of his top challenges, citing Davidson's proposed class action, as well as one filed earlier in B.C. by former Const. Janet Merlo. While the force has implemented a number of respectful-workplace initiatives, recruited more women and promoted more women to senior positions, "the memory of a publicly floundering RCMP, following a succession of very significant shortcomings, is not yet distant enough in the minds of those we serve," Mr. Paulson wrote. "Therefore, we continue to maintain a sense of urgency in our ongoing efforts toward transforming the force into a modern, professional, national police force." The harassment and discrimination that Davidson faced "forced her to leave an organization she loved, and led to the premature end of a distinguished career," her lawyer Megan McPhee said in an email. But even in retirement, it still took Ms. Davidson awhile before she was comfortable going public with her allegations. It wasn't until last year, when her PTSD, anxiety and depression were "sufficiently manageable," she wrote in an affidavit, that she decided to file the lawsuit. In court documents, Ms. Davidson alleges multiple overt sexual acts from male colleagues. Early in her career, she says, an officer at the Grand Falls detachment in Newfoundland put his hand down her shirt and grabbed her breast. She said she slapped him across the face. In the mid-1990s, while working at Toronto's airport, she says a sergeant without warning began to remove her tie and belt. "I told him to never lay his hands on me again." In the early 2000s at the Hamilton-Niagara detachment, she says a chief superintendent put his hands on her waist and tried to kiss her and that a commanding officer sexually propositioned her. She says she was also subjected to cruel jokes. The first time she attended a fatal car accident, she alleges a male colleague dropped a victim's detached finger, with ring still attached, into the palm of her hand, causing her to vomit. She claims colleagues in Newfoundland put sex toys in her work basket and the same constable who reached down her shirt also tied balloons to her desk to insinuate that he had had sex with her. From 1979 to 2004, Ms. Davidson was married to a man, but she says she faced constant questioning about her sexual orientation. She says she was called "stud," "bitch" and "queer." In 2008, she married a woman. She claims colleagues on the prime minister's security detail spread false rumours she was having sexual relations with women who were not her spouse. Meanwhile, she was regularly passed over for work on meaningful cases and her skills were constantly questioned and tested, according to her suit. She was once sent alone into a bar fight involving about 30 people, she says. As an inspector in Hamilton-Niagara, her male peers did not respond helpfully when she wanted to discuss tactical issues, she claims. She says a male superintendent on the prime minister's security team made derogatory remarks about women's physical abilities. For the most part, Davidson says she kept quiet. When she did complain, she says she was told if she was "going to swim in the shark tank," she'd better act like a shark. Ms. Davidson says she turned to alcohol to cope. In 1992, she wrote, "I actually put a gun in my mouth, but I was crying so hard that I could not hold it steady." None of her allegations has been tested in court. A statement of defence has not been filed and the RCMP declined to comment. Ms. Davidson's claim seeks $500 million in damages. Her lawyer says the number is based on the roughly 10,000 women who have been on the force. An application to certify the B.C. case as a class action was argued last year and awaiting a decision. A certification hearing in Davidson's Ontario case is set for May. CARRIER CORP: Faces Asbestosis Class Action in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that a most interesting asbestosis lawsuit is percolating in Hartford, Connecticut, that carries various storylines and potential outcomes: alleged asbestos exposure at the workplace when the employer had emphatically stated there was no asbestos present, followed by testing that confirmed there was; an asbestosis compensation lawsuit recently approved for class-action status even though Workers' Compensation law may prohibit some plaintiffs from participating; a class-action lawsuit skewed toward future medical monitoring given that exposure occurred within the last six years, whereas it can take decades for asbestosis disease to develop. . . In spite of that, it has been reported that lead plaintiff Danny Dougan has been wheezing and complaining of shortness of breath. Is it due to an unusually early onset of asbestosis lung disease? Or is it due, as defendants suggest, from a years-long smoking habit? The Journal Inquirer reports that some workers involved in a 2010 reconstruction project at Sikorsky Aircraft, located in Stratford, may have been exposed to asbestos in spite their employer providing assurance that there was no asbestos present, or so it has been alleged. According to the asbestosis lawsuit report, employees of Sikorsky, co-defendants Carrier Corp., and URS Corp. AES, and B-G Mechanical Contractors Inc. of Chicopee, Massachusetts (B-G), were tasked with the removal of pipes and fittings in a boiler house as part of a reconstruction that occurred between March and July 2010. The boiler house dated back to 1930 and is described as a "cogeneration" plant that produced both heat and electricity. The use of asbestos as insulation for pipes and boilers was common practice in that era, prior to the carcinogenic risks of asbestos becoming more widely known to the greater population. Lead plaintiff Dougan was an employee of B-G. Mr. Dougan and his fellow plaintiffs from B-G as well as other workers involved in the project inquired as to the presence of asbestos in the plant and what the risks might be. According to the asbestosis disease lawsuit, the workers were subsequently informed by the defendants that "testing had been done, that asbestos was not present on the pipes and pipe fittings, and that it was safe for them to do the work to which they had been assigned," according to court documents related to the lawsuit. It has been reported that workers commenced operations in the cogeneration plant amidst continued misgivings, and continued to raise the matter until testing was conducted in early July of that year. The tests revealed the presence of asbestos. "Visible asbestos and overloaded air samples" were found as a result of improper disturbance of insulation containing asbestos on pipes and pipe fittings, the lawsuit alleges. "Despite these results, the project was not shut down until approximately two weeks later," the suit continues, saying workers continued to be exposed during that time. It was at this time that licensed asbestos contractors were brought in to safely remove asbestos. Sikorsky employees, who continued to operate the boilers and keep them active during the reconstruction project, began to wear respirators following the release of test results. But by then, was it too late? In approving class-action status for the asbestosis lung cancer lawsuit, Judge Grant Miller of Hartford Superior Court noted that employees of Sikorsky and Carrier would be limited as to their participation in the class-action lawsuit given existing rules governing Workers' Compensation. The latter, according to the Journal Inquirer, makes it relatively easy for workers to collect asbestosis exposure compensation from their employers, but said compensation could be limited under Workers' Compensation rules. Plaintiffs would have to litigate that point individually, as well as litigating the extent and nature of medical monitoring needed in order to minimize the negative health impacts of asbestos exposure going forward. As noted earlier, the alleged exposure to asbestos occurred in 2010, or six years ago. Typically, asbestosis pleural plaques can languish within the body for upwards of 30 years before suddenly emerging in the form of asbestosis cancer. Thus the thrust of the asbestos lawsuit -- which has been approved as a class action -- would be the potential for asbestosis lung complications in forthcoming decades, and various applications of medical monitoring to be conducted over time that may succeed in minimizing adverse effects. As for plaintiff Dougan, his situation is expected to generate some polarizing testimony from two expert witnesses; one for the plaintiffs and another for the defendants. According to the Journal Inquirer, Dr. M. Saul Anwar, a specialist in respiratory diseases, is expected to testify for the plaintiff "that screening and early detection can be life-saving and/or improve the quality of life in those individuals who develop asbestos-related diseases," according to court papers. The defendants in the lawsuit are expected to respond with Dr. Barry William Levine of Massachusetts General Hospital, who is expected to testify that Mr. Dougan does not suffer from asbestosis lung disease, but rather "Mr. Dougan does suffer from severe emphysema attributable to his long history of smoking cigarettes and, as a result, Mr. Dougan requires regular medical surveillance." CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: 4 Shareholder Class Suits Filed in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Checkpoint Systems faces four shareholder class actions in Philadelphia alleging that the planned $443 million merger with CCL Industries undervalues the stock. COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Transferred to M.D. ------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Rangel, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; and Elite Storage Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; jointly and severally, Case No. 3:16-cv-00030-CDL (M.D., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was originally filed on January 19, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of North Carolina, Case No. 4:16-cv-00008, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on March 17, 2016. Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company and is a staffing company that specializes in supplying safe, efficient, and productive employees to the energy industry; it also provides staffing services to companies in the coal, gas and industrial businesses. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. 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 - and - Pedro Krompecher, Esq. KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC 4010 Barrett Drive #203 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 977-8082 E-mail: pedro@krompecherlaw.com COST PLUS: Violated Cal. Labor Code & CLRA, "Grady" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Grady, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. Cost Plus, Inc., California corporation, and Does 1- 500, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16808692 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, (March 22, 2016), seeks to recover declaratory and ancillary injunctive relief, and money had and received, as a result of Defendants' violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unlawful Business Practices, and California Civil Code (CLC). The Defendants allegedly refused to redeem the remaining value of gift cards for cash, and the consumer often forfeits the remaining value of the card, unless he or she makes an unnecessary purchase which would likely involve additional out-of-pocket costs. The unredeemed portion of gift cards are customarily swept into Defendants' coffers as revenue, with nothing provided in return, the complaint says. Cost Plus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc., a New York corporation. Cost Plus operates over 275 Cost Plus World Market retail stores in thirty states with dozens of stores in the State of California. According to public records, Cost Plus has estimated yearly gross sales of almost one billion dollars. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary D. Garcia, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA 3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 795 6580 Facsimile: (619) 795 6582 - and - Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq. Robert B. Hancock, Esq. PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER 50 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 310 1940 Facsimile: (415) 354 3508 DOLMEN GROUP: Faces "Granja" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------- Fanklin S. Granja, and other similarly situated individuals v. Dolmen Group Inc.; and Alejandro Alvarez, individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-20982-JAL (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dolmen Group Inc., a Florida corporation, is a printing company specialized in commercial printing, graphic design services, and the productions of all kind of advertising and marketing related materials, including banners, fliers, vinyl decals, labels etc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DPL CONSTRUCTION: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Alcantara, individually, Luis Lara, individually, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. DPL Construction Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, individually; Daniel Lora Pimentel, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 39299846 (11th Judicial Cir. Ct., in and for Miami-Dade County, Fla., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA). DPL is engaged in the Commercial and High-End Residential Millwork, Casework, and Door Installation Industry. The Company provides Architectural Product Installations while maintaining Safety. DPL employs Union Carpenters in the Western Washington area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, 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: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com regueiro@rgpattorneys.com pn@rgpattorneys.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.). On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC, Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions and denied DBCC's motion but granted the Company's motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims against the Company without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants' motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed oppositions to the motions for class certification. On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of the motions for class certification. The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement. "Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results," the Company said. DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)) On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die- Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent misrepresentation and concealment. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement. "Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results," the Company said. DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Vinotemp Case Negotiate Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)) On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions and DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement. "Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results," the Company said. DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Talk Deal --------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv- 128 (E.D.N.C.)) On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to dismiss. The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement. "Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results," the Company said. DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commenced in "Thomas" Case ------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery has commenced in the case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No. 2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.) On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express written consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to $1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS. DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April 30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery has commenced and the Court has issued a schedule for amended pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class certification motion and trial. The Company is continuing to investigate the Complaint's allegations. The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation ("Dun & Bradstreet" or "we" or "us" or "our" or the "Company") grows the most valuable relationships in business. By uncovering truth and meaning from data, we connect customers with the prospects, suppliers, clients and partners that matter most, and have since 1841. Nearly ninety percent of the Fortune 500, and companies of every size around the world, rely on our data, insights and analytics. Dun & Bradstreet(R) is the world's leading source of commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses. Our global commercial database as of December 31, 2015 contained more than 250 million business records. We transform commercial data into valuable insight which is the foundation of our global solutions that customers rely on to make critical business decisions. EDISON SOLAR: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Zhu" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Yuankun Zhu, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. Edison Solar Technology, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC613421 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, attorney's fees and costs, and unpaid wages, under the California Labor Code. Edison Solar carries the solar system brands through their network. The Company provides energy consultation and assistance for energy needs. James W. Johnston, Esq. 3890 Eleventh Street, Suite 203 Riverside, CA 92501 Facsimile: (877) 571 0091 Telephone: (213) 291 0648 E-mail: jj@johnstonlawoffice.com - and - Kelly Y. Chen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN 13200 Crossroads Parkway North Suite 475 City of Industry, CA 91746 Telephone: (562) 692 5828 Facsimile: (626) 389 5455 E-mail: Attorney@KellyChenLaw.com ELEGANT DESSERT NY: "Ordaz" Labor Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y, Brooklyn -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Elegant Dessert NY Inc. The case is captioned Angel Ordaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Elegant Dessert NY Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01394 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, March 2, 2016). Elegant Desserts is a frozen dessert company based in Brooklyn. The Company makes desserts for all special occasions. Angel Ordaz is a pro se plaintiff. ESA MANAGEMENT: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Roberts v. ESA Management, LLC; Beata Combs and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001047-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016), alleges harassment based on perceived disability, retaliatory harassment, retaliation, aiding and abetting and violation of the doctrine set forth in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that defendant Beata Combs, a District Manager and plaintiff's direct Supervisor, harasses the plaintiff because she believed the plaintiff to be obese. The Plaintiff says she worked in the position of General Manager until her unlawful termination in November 2015. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. ESA Management, LLC operates hotels. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 Richard Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eze Truck Holdings, Inc.; and Patterson Motor Freight, Inc. d/b/a Patterson Truck & Crane, Case 2:16-cv-00240-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Eze Truck Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware limited liability company operating a lift crane service. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Facsimile: (469) 533-1618 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com * * * Wadi Reformado, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that a Texas man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Eze Truck Holdings Inc. and Patterson Truck & Crane, citing alleged unpaid wages. Richard Garner filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 17, in the Marshall Division of the Southern District of Texas against Eze Truck Holdings Inc. and Patterson Motor Freight Inc., doing business as Patterson Truck & Crane, alleging that they wrongfully failed to properly compensate their employees by paying them over time wages. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked for more than 40 hours per week and did not receive any overtime wages during his employment. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because the defendant allegedly paid their employees on a salary basis regardless of the total number of hours they worked. ESSEX PORTFOLIO: "Foster" Action Still Pending in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- Essex Portfolio, L.P. still defends the "Foster" Class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Foster v. Essex Property Trust, Inc. alleging that the Company failed to properly secure the personally-identifying information of its residents. The lawsuit seeks the recovery of unspecified damages and certain injunctive relief. This lawsuit was filed in connection with a cyber-intrusion that the Company discovered in the third quarter of 2014. At this point, the Company is unable to predict the developments in, outcome of, and/or economic and/or other consequences of this litigation or predict the developments in, outcome of, and/or other consequences arising out of any potential future litigation or government inquiries related to this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. Essex Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, is an S&P 500 company that operates as a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust. EVERBANK: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vathana" Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the case captioned, EK VATHANA, Plaintiff, v. EVERBANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-02338- RS (N.D. Cal.). On April 24, 2009 Lead Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract on behalf of himself and a class of purchasers of EverBank WorldCurrency certificates of deposit denominated in Icelandic Krona against EverBank, its parent corporation, and one of its divisions. On May 27, 2009, EverBank removed the Action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court certified the Class, consisting of "all purchasers of an EverBank WorldCurrency Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic Krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008," and appointed Ek Vathana as the class representative and Michael Millen, Esq. as class counsel. The Parties and their counsel engage in arm's-length settlement negotiations over the course of two months with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero. Subject to the approval of the Court and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into between and among Lead Plaintiff Ek Vathana, on behalf of himself and the Class defined herein and Defendants EverBank, EverBank Financial Corp, and EverBank World Markets, by and through their respective duly authorized counsel. In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/AU9oR0 from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that the proposed Settlement should be approved as: (i) the result of serious, extensive arm's- length and non-collusive negotiations; (ii) falling within a range of reasonableness warranting final approval; (iii) having no obvious deficiencies; (iv) not improperly granting preferential treatment to the Lead Plaintiff or segments of the Class; and (v) warranting notice of the proposed Settlement to Class Members. The class counsel is authorized to retain Rust Consulting, Inc. as the "Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure and the processing of claims under the supervision of Class Counsel. The Court scheduled the Fairness Hearing on July 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Ek Vathana is represented by: Michael Millen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL MILLEN 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel: (408) 871-0777 EverBank is represented by Brooks Russell Brown, Esq. - bbrown@goodwinprocter.com -- Alexis L. Shapiro, Esq. -- ashapiro@goodwnprocter.com -- April Sun, Esq. -- asun@goodwinprocter.com -- Deborah Sager Birnbach, Esq. and Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq. -- astoll@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Amonoo" Suit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Advantage, LLC. The case is captioned Domonique Amonoo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01601- ES-JAD (D. N.J., Newark. March 2, 2016). Firstsource Advantage offers collections and recovery solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in February 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in Amherst, New York. As of October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pile Up --------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a flood of lawsuits has been filed over the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, but the unprecedented situation that exposed thousands of children to lead contamination has plaintiffs lawyers scrambling to figure out who -- if anyone -- will pay. As a U.S. House committee held hearings over the problems in Flint, more than 30 cases hit the courts, boosting the total to about 40 lawsuits. The claims are all over the map. Some have been filed under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, while others assert gross negligence or constitutional claims. Some are class actions, some individual cases. And a lengthy list of government officials named as defendants, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who testified on Capitol Hill on March 17, has expanded to include three engineering firms that studied Flint's water. The myriad legal approaches reflect a tricky predicament for plaintiffs lawyers -- one that most prominently features the immunity defenses that government officials have, said Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School. "This is an entire city contaminated by a series of governmental decisions, so it implicates federal, state and local officials," Mr. Henning said. "That's something we haven't seen before. And I guess there's a natural reaction to say someone ought to pay for it. The problem is finding anyone who can be held liable." Complaints about the color and odor of Flint's tap water began soon after the city's water supply was temporarily shifted in 2014 from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite studies warning that its corrosive nature could risk lead from old pipes leaching into the drinking water. About 10,000 households have been tested for contamination, among Flint's 100,000 residents. The crisis surged to the national stage. Gov. Snyder and Gina McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has been under fire for its slow response to the crisis, faced blistering attacks from members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee, which held its first hearing over the Flint crisis in February, also heard testimony on March 15 from Susan Hedman, the former administrator of the EPA's Midwest region who resigned on Feb. 1, and two former Flint officials who have been named in many of the lawsuits. Dozens of government officials, some of whom lost their jobs, have been accused in lawsuits of falsely assuring residents about the safety of their drinking water despite knowing of its toxic levels of lead. The water supply source now comes from Lake Huron again, but residents are suing after being diagnosed with lead poisoning and other health problems. Some also want the pipes in their homes fixed or want reimbursement for water bills. Many of the government officials are due to respond in court in April. "There's an anger, a mob, and people want someone's head," said Corey Stern, of counsel to New York's Levy Konigsberg, who filed 31 individual lawsuits on behalf of 75 children. To circumvent government immunity defenses, Stern has sued three engineering firms for professional negligence. The first firm, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam Inc., named in two prior class actions, was tasked with preparing the water treatment plant for the water supply transition. A second firm, Rowe Professional Services Co., was hired by the city in 2011 to conduct a quality analysis on the Flint River as a water source. The third firm, Indianapolis-based Veolia North America, made recommendations on how to reduce the level of chemical compounds called trihalomethanes after complaints began pouring in from Flint residents in 2015. A spokesman for Houston's Lockwood said the allegations mischaracterized its role, and Veolia spokesman Paul Whitmore said the studies addressed the water's color and odor issues. "Lead and copper testing were never included in the scope of work for Veolia," he said. Richard Mark, chief operating officer of Rowe, declined to comment. OVERCOMING IMMUNITY Most of the other suits are class actions primarily focused on government defendants, but they've asserted different claims to overcome immunity defenses. Initial suits made constitutional arguments. Michael Pitt, a lawyer in Royal Oak, Michigan, who filed the first case over the Flint crisis on Nov. 13 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, has alleged that residents had their due process rights violated under the 14th Amendment. In a second class action filed on Jan. 20 in the Michigan Court of Claims, he made arguments under the state constitution. "If the state or the governmental agency enhances the danger, creates the danger, prolongs the danger to the plaintiff, due process is implicated," said Pitt, of Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers. A third case, filed on Jan. 19 in Michigan's Genesee County Circuit Court, asserts gross negligence -- a claim that if proven could defeat a government immunity defense, Mr. Pitt said. Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who filed a class action on March 7, has added environmental claims to his case. He and the Natural Resource Defense Council Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which filed their own suit on Jan. 27, have brought claims under the Safe Drinking Water Act. "We tend to focus on the environmental statutes that apply, and we think this is the appropriate venue," he said. But those suits have a "real uphill fight" since it's unclear whether the lawyers have the right to bring a private lawsuit under the act, which is primarily regulatory in nature, Mr. Henning said. And the due process lawsuits, he said, are "tough cases to win." FLINT, MI: Independent Panel Releases Findings on Water Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- Melony Hill, writing for The Urban Twist, reports that the contaminated water crisis in Flint, Michigan is far from over. A class action lawsuit was filed in February by a well known Baltimore lawyer. Attorney William H. "Billy" Murphy Jr. is the lawyer who negotiated the 6.4 million dollar settlement between the city of Baltimore and the family of Freddie Gray after his death in police custody. Now he has set his eyes on Flint, Michigan. Mr. Murphy and Flint attorney Val Washington filed the lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan. The lawsuit calls for the city and state to refund $150 million in water bills paid by affected Flint residents during the time the water was being drawn from the contaminated river. In fact data from the Detroit Free Press show that Flint residents paid the most for water compared to the 500 cities with the largest water systems. The suit also seeks compensation for what Mr. Murphy says are "all of the damages that are a consequence of having to be forced to use dangerous water, and includes the cost of changing the interior plumbing in every house, and hot water heaters." The water supply in Flint has been switched back to Detroit's water system but it may be too little too late. State officials and residents alike are worried that the lead in the water may have done too much damage to pipes in the city's homes and businesses. Lead poisoning is known to cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children who have been affected. The lawsuit names not only the city of Flint and state of Michigan but a slew of public officials as well as defendants. Among those listed by name are former mayor Dayne Walling, Governor Rick Snyder, Flint Emergency Managers Darnell Early and Gerald Ambrose. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services are named in the suit as well. The lawsuit claims the city and state violated the residents' rights by providing them with contaminated water and then telling them the water was safe. It also accuses the officials of conspiring to cover up the problem even as residents were being poisoned. Emails have surfaced showing that Flint officials trucked in water for the state buildings as local residents had contaminated waters pumped into their homes and businesses. Governor Snyder testified before congress earlier this month on the crisis in Flint. Two years after the city of Flint's water supply was switched to being pumped from the Flint river residents are drinking and bathing with bottled water. Bottled water has been being trucked into the city for months, ever since the water crisis came to public attention. On March 25 Gov. Rick Snyder announced that FEMA has approved the state of Michigan's request to extend a presidential emergency declaration for the city of Flint and Genesee County until Aug. 14, 2016. The extension authorizes federal supplies of bottled water, water filters, replacement cartridges and test kits to continue for another four months to ensure the health and safety of Flint residents. FEMA noted this is the final extension and no further extensions will be granted. Governor Snyder laid out a 75 point plan to get the city back on track. Under Gov. Snyder's plan, some pipes would be removed as part of a pilot program, which is contrary to the demands of Flint residents, that all the pipes be replaced. Flint residents and many political leaders have said that Snyder needs to resign or be fired. "I want to solve the problem in Flint. So that's my focal point," Gov. Snyder said. "Glad to get 75 points out there that we're going to work on putting in place." An independent panel appointed by Governor Snyder himself released their findings last week on the water crisis in Flint. The report found that the crisis is as they put it "is a story of government failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction and environmental injustice." The panel found fault in employees on almost every level of state government. The panel also found that "The facts of the Flint water crisis lead us to the inescapable conclusion that this is a case of environmental injustice." "Flint residents, who are majority black or African-American and among the most impoverished of any metropolitan area in the United States, did not enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards as that provided to other communities," the report concluded. The panel in essence has said the same thing many have said watching this play out in the news and on television. Many have said that the complaints of residents were ignored because they were mostly Black and no one cared. Why doesn't everyone deserve the same clean drinking water? The 116-page report faulted local Flint officials and the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and concluded that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had "primary responsibility for the water contamination in Flint and caused this crisis to happen." The panel made 44 recommendations, including that the governor's office review the state's emergency manager law, that environmental regulations be clarified, and that the governor's office improve its method of assessing information. It also pointed out the inadequate funding of government services, which leads to a slower response to problems and residents needs. This situation is far from over. The water is expected to be back to drinkable soon but it doesn't change the damage done. It doesn't make well those who have been affected by this contaminated water. This situation is one to keep a close eye on. FREEWAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Bonilla" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc., a California limited liability company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC614373 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wage in violation of the California Labor Code. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. is a privately held insurance distribution company in the U.S.; it has operations throughout the state of California, including Los Angeles County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 FULL CIRCLE FINANCIAL: Violated FDC Act, "Shedler" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been commenced against Full Circle Financial Services, LLC, and Absolute Resolutions Corp. The case is captioned Teresa Shedler, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Full Circle Financial Services, LLC, and Absolute Resolutions Corp, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01603-CCC-MF (Dist. N.J., Newark, March 22, 2016). Full Circle Financial Services is engaged in the financial advisory and assistance business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com G&R MARINE LABOR: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Clemente Ponce Vargas, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G&R Marine Labor Services, LLC and Walter Trammell, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02407 (E.D. La., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). G&R is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of Alabama with its principal place of business in Citronelle, Alabama. The Company is in the business of blasting and painting ships and all ship components for commercial ship yards. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto L. Costales, Esq. COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 914 1048 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William Henry Beaumont, Esq. WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the credibility of the lead plaintiff in the second General Motors ignition switch litigation was on the line on March 16 as she tried to make the case that a defective switch, and not black ice, caused her Saturn Sky to lose control on a stormy night New Orleans in 2014. Dionne Spain told a jury that she was not hurt enough to seek medical treatment right after her car allegedly lost power and ran into a bridge wall on Jan. 24, 2014. But she said she did suffer neck and shoulder injuries that later required treatment, and she never would have bought the car had she known of the defect. Ms. Spain was asked by her lawyer, Randall Jackson, "Did anyone ever warn you that your car could cut off if, say, your knee grazed the key chain or the car hit a bump?" Ms. Spain answered "No" before Jackson asked if she would have bought the car had she known about a defective switch that could cause the car to lose power brakes and steering. "I would not have purchased that car if I felt I would have put myself in danger," she said. Her testimony came in the third day of trial on her and fellow plaintiff Lawrence Barthelemy's attempt to hold GM liable and win compensatory damages for the same type of defective ignition switches that already have cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and forced a massive recall. The trial is the second of six bellwether cases being tried before Southern District Judge Jesse Furman to set the parameters for settlement, or nothing at all, from GM, which is fighting the last few hundred cases in the multi-district litigation. This case was selected by GM. Plaintiffs selected the first trial, only to watch it crumble in January amid possible perjury by the lead plaintiff and his wife on his injuries (NYLJ, Jan. 25). After Mr. Jackson, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, completed his direct examination, Kirkland & Ellis partner and GM attorney Mike Brock, challenged Ms. Spain's version of events on cross examination, trying to exploit discrepancies, such as whether or not she saw cars spin out of control on the ice before her accident. More than 30 cars were involved in accidents on the bridge that night that police attributed to black ice. Mr. Brock focused heavily on the injury issue and Ms. Spain's condition. She went on to a social event that evening after her car struck a Jersey barrier in the middle of the bridge. "You were not in any pain or suffering when you were walking on the bridge? Mr. Brock asked. "No, not severe pain," Ms. Spain replied. "You have described that you were not in pain, is that true or not true?" "I just said I wasn't in severe pain. I didn't really feel the impact of the accident at that point," she answered. GENERAL MOTORS: No Verdict Yet in 2nd Ignition Switch Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a jury in a New York City trial stemming from the General Motors ignition switch controversy that resulted in millions of recalls ended its first day of deliberations on March 29 without reaching a verdict. The jury deliberated in Manhattan federal court for more than two hours after hearing a lawyer for a Louisiana man and woman blame a defective ignition switch for a 2014 accident on a New Orleans bridge. A GM lawyer said there was no evidence the ignition switch was to blame. The trial will be used as a blueprint to define legal boundaries for similar unsettled claims against the automaker, which has issued recalls affecting more than 30 million vehicles since early 2014. Hundreds of claims remain against the automaker after GM revealed two years ago that it had continued to sell flawed vehicles for more than a decade after discovering an ignition switch defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars. Under certain conditions, the ignition switch can slip out of the on position, making it difficult to steer or stop as the car stalls. GM says it has fixed the problem. Plaintiffs' attorney Randall Jackson told jurors there was overwhelming evidence the defect was to blame in the crash. He said a key chain pulled down by the weight of other keys might have pulled it out of position. And he added that testimony that the car turned off during the accident was "all you need to hear." Mr. Jackson dismissed GM's counterarguments, saying: "You will find they don't make sense." General Motors attorney Mike Brock blamed the crash on ice, saying the car's occupants had no serious injuries and nothing deserving of compensation at trial. "This accident was not caused by a defective switch," he said. Mr. Brock noted that the only damage to the car was scrapes on a bumper. In September, GM announced it had settled 1,385 death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders' lawsuit for $300 million. The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established. Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275 injuries. GM's fund rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343 claims it received, according to figures the company released in December. GEO GROUP: EEOC Findings Win Appellate Court Support ---------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated the order of the district court and remanded the case entitled STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Civil Rights Division, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICE HANCOCK, Intervenor- Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, DBA Arizona State Prison-Florence West and Central Arizona Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees, RICK MAULDIN, an individual, Defendant. STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Civil Rights Division, Plaintiffs, ALICE HANCOCK, Intervenor-Plaintiff, and U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, DBA Arizona State Prison-Florence West and Central Arizona Correctional Facility, Defendant-Appellee. RICK MAULDIN, an individual, Defendant, Nos. 13-16081, 13-16292 (9th Cir.) Geo Group, Incorporated (Geo) is a corporation that employs over 13,000 employees and provides corrections and detention management, health and mental health services to federal, state, and local government agencies. Geo contracts with the Arizona Department of Corrections to maintain and operate the low-to- medium security return-to-custody and driving-under the-influence units at Florence West and the medium security sex-offender unit at Central Arizona Correctional Facility. Alice Hancock was employed by Geo as a correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison, Florence West Facility. On June 5, 2009, Hancock filed a charge of discrimination with the Arizona Civil Rights Division (Division) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Hancock alleged that while working with Sergeant Robert Kroen he grabbed her crotch and pinched her vagina. Hancock filed an incident report with Geo, but contends that Geo did not remedy the harassment. After Hancock complained about Kroen's conduct, three of her coworkers complained that Hancock had made an offensive comment. Geo placed Hancock on unpaid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, and later suspended her for 15 days without pay. Three months after Hancock filed her charge of discrimination, Geo terminated Hancock's employment. After an investigation, the Division and EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Geo had violated the employment rights of the corrections officer and a class of female employees. Conciliation attempts failed, and the EEOC and the Division brought suit on behalf of a class of female employees alleging that Geo violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Geo dismissing several employees whom neither the EEOC nor the Division had identified until after filing the complaint. The district court also dismissed several employees who had not alleged acts within 300 days of the Division's Reasonable Cause Determination. The district court dismissed the hostile work environment claim of another aggrieved employee, Sofia Hines, on the ground that the conduct she alleged was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Division and EEOC made an appeal and raise the following issues: (1) the scope of the requirement that the EEOC and the Division conciliate any claims with an employer prior to bringing suit, (2) when Title VII's 300-day limitations period starts to run in an EEOC class action; (3) whether, in an EEOC class action, an aggrieved employee is required to file a new charge of discrimination for acts that occur after the Reasonable Cause Determination; and (4) whether aggrieved employee Sophia Hines has presented material issues of fact as to her hostile work environment claim. Circuit Judge Callahan vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the EEOC and Division's dismissed claims brought on behalf of aggrieved employees. A copy of Circuit Judge Callahan's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/1hRNFnfrom Leagle.com. For plaintiff-Appellant EEOC: P. David Lopez, Esq. Lorraine C. Davis, Esq. Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. Anne Noel Occhialino, Esq. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20507 Telephone: 202-663-4900 For plaintiffs-appellants State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Law: Attorney General of Arizona Thomas C. Horne, Esq. Rose Daly-Rooney, Esq. Christian B. Carlsen, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: 202-514-4609 For Defendant-Appellee The Geo Group, Philip L. Ross -- plross@littler.com -- R. Shawn Oller -- soller@littler.com -- Kristy L. Peters -- kpeters@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C. The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Stephen Reinhardt and A. Wallace Tashima. GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends Against "Freeman" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a lawsuit by Sharon Freeman. On December 22, 2014, a former student representative filed a purported class- and collective-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which she asserts claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (Sharon Freeman v. Kaplan, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that she and other law students who were student representatives, on their respective law school campuses, of Kaplan's bar exam preparation business should have been classified as employees and paid minimum wage. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry. Graham Holdings Company (the Company) is primarily a diversified education and media company. The Company's Kaplan subsidiary provides a wide variety of educational services, both domestically and outside the United States. HESS CORP: Court Reinstates Heating Oil Adulteration Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that adulteration claims against two of New York City's largest suppliers of heating oil have been reinstated by the Appellate Division, First Department, in a ruling on March 15. Justice David Saxe, writing for the court, held that "if the goods that are delivered do not conform to the goods contemplated by the sale contract, the purchaser has a cause of action under the Uniform Commercial Code." The lower court had dismissed the class action complaints brought by buyers of heating oil on the grounds that the plaintiffs had shown no actual damages as a result of using heating oil allegedly diluted with waste lubricating oil. Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in a September 2014 opinion, said that "far from being some shady, quasi-criminal activity, burning used lubricating oil for fuel is actually permitted and encouraged" to foster recycling. But the panel said such laws do not "necessarily or automatically justify its use for purposes of the parties' contracts, and does not provide a basis for dismissal of these complaints." Justice Saxe added that the damages were not speculative. "Under UCC 2-714(2), the measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of the goods warranted," he wrote. Justice Kornreich cited precedents, including the First Department case Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118 (1st Dept 2002), lv. denied, 99 NY2d 502 (2002), for the proposition that "a theoretical defect that never manifests itself in a product's poor performance or causes harm is an insufficient ground upon which to base a damage claim." But Justice Saxe said the cases cited involved products liability and were inapplicable to a breach of warranty claim brought under the UCC. Justices Peter Tom, Rosalyn Richter and Judith Gische joined in the opinion. The lead plaintiffs' firm, Wachtel Missry, had hired a private investigation company to conduct surveillance of fuel suppliers, and laboratory tested the fuel oil they delivered, the opinion said. The company's investigation was triggered by a 2013 state and federal probe of adulteration allegations. Defendant Hess Corporation mixed its fuel oil with 15-25 percent waste oil, according to the complaint in BMW Group v. Castle Oil, 650910/13. Castle Oil, which last year sold its fuel oil business, said it never warranted that the oil did not contain recycled oils, and said those additives met state and federal specifications. Holland & Knight partner Robert Burns -- robert.burns@hklaw.com -- who represents Castle, said the First Department decision "requires the plaintiffs to prove what they will be unable to prove. We are confident that plaintiffs cannot show that they were harmed by receiving exactly what they paid for: heating oil that complied with all applicable definitions, laws and regulations." INNER VALLEY TRANSPORT: "Alex" Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Inner Valley Transport, Inc. The case is captioned Alex Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inner Valley Transport, Inc., a California Company, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-100625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Count of Kern, March 22, 2016). Inner Valley Transport is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Kingsburg, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 512 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 INTEREXCHANGE INC: Magistrate Judge Rules in Au Pair Program Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the District of Colorado issued a recommendation on several motions to dismiss filed by defendants in the case JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, DAYANNA PAOLA CARDENAS CAICEDO, and ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC., USAUPAIR, INC., GREAT AUPAIR, LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair, EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMSTAY INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC. d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair, AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a AuPair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a/ GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.EX. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC d/b/a/ProAuPair, and 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.) The J-1 visa program was created to facilitate cultural exchange between nations and the applicable visas are carried out under the authority of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961. The J-1 au pair program was created in 1986 and was administered by the United States Information Agency (USIA). Initially, the au pair program was considered solely a cultural exchange program and was not subject to any employment or labor law protections. However, the au pairs were required to work 45 hours per week providing child care services to their host families. Under the program, the au pairs were paid $100.00 per week for their services, plus room and board. The USIA delegated oversight to entities that it designated to act as sponsors (Sponsors) for the J-1 visa au pair program. In 1990, in response to a Congressional request, the General Accounting Office ("GAO") issued a report to Congress entitled, "Inappropriate Uses of Educational and Cultural Exchange Visas" (the "GAO Report"), in which the GAO determined,inter alia, that the au pair program was in reality a work program administered under the auspices of "cultural exchange" that required 45 hours per week of work. Today, the United States Department of State (DOS), rather than the USIA, oversees the au pair program. Sponsor defendants are the exclusive entities authorized to recruit and place au pairs with host families in the United States. DOS regulations mandate that Sponsors ensure various conditions of employment for the au pairs, including but not limited to that host families are capable of and do meet various requirements and that au pairs are compensated in compliance with labor laws and do not work beyond specified limits. Plaintiffs named each of the designated Sponsors as defendants in the action and allege that in spite of the fact that the applicable regulations require that au pairs receive not less than the applicable minimum wage as compensation, sponsors have conspired and agreed to set all of the au pairs' weekly wages at the purported minimum amount, currently $195.75 per week plus room and board. Additionally, plaintiffs contend the sponsors falsely inform both au pairs and host families that the minimum wage is the maximum wage au pairs are permitted to receive. Sponsors universally advertise that the au pairs fees will be $195.75 per week plus room and board. The required fees that each host family must pay to each Sponsor range in amount from $7,000.00 to $8,700.00. Plaintiffs assert, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, federal claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1964, et seq., and the FLSA, as well as state law claims based on Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud or Fraudulent Concealment, Consumer Protection laws, Breach of Contract or Quasi Contract, Unpaid Wages, and claims pursuant to various state wage laws. Before the court are defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all claims in first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by defendant Interexchange, Inc., Defendant American Cultural Exchange, LLC, D/B/A Go Au Pair's motion to dismiss counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the first amended complaint, joint motion by certain sponsor defendants to dismiss the first amended complaint and certification of compliance with Civil Practice Standard7.1D. and defendant American Institute for Foreign Study's motion to dismiss amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, which each defendant replied. Also before the court is defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to strike material in plaintiffs' consolidated opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion to strike certain exhibits submitted by the defendants. Magistrate Judge Tafoya recommends that: -- the joint motion by certain defendants to dismiss the first amended complaint and certification of compliance with Civil Practice Standard 7.1D, should be denied; -- defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all claims in first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by defendant InterExchange, Inc., defendant American Cultural Exchange, L.L.C., D/B/A Go Au Pair's motion to dismiss Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the first amended complaint, and defendant American Institute for Foreign Study's motion to dismiss amended complaint, should be granted in part and denied in part; -- Plaintiffs' claim under the Utah Minimum Wage Act and plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract should be dismissed; -- Plaintiffs' remaining claims should proceed; and -- defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to strike material in plaintiffs' consolidated opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike certain exhibits submitted by the defendants be denied as moot. A copy of Magistrate Judge Tafoya's recommendation dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/O5QpUHfrom Leagle.com. Johana Paola Beltran, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer Louis -- llouis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice Beaudette Deetlefs, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice Dayanna Paola Cardenas Caicedo, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Erica Lynn Herrera -- eherrera@shermanhoward.com - - Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Heather Fox Vickles -- hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp, Kelly & Walker, LLC & William James Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao -- mestevao@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP & Meshach Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP Expert Group International, Inc, Defendant, represented by Bogdan Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at Law EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne Barrett, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Margo J. Arnold, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP-Los Angeles & Martha Louise Fitzgerald, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by James Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP & Mher Hartoonian, Holland & Hart, LLP Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair, Defendant, represented by Donald Joseph Gentile, Lawson & Weitzen, LLP Cultural Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Paul Allen, Lawson & Weitzen, LLP & Walter Vernon Siebert, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Roger Mann, Gordon & Rees, LLP & Thomas Baker Quinn, Gordon & Rees, LLP Au Pair International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Alan Birenbach, Rietz Law Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP APF Global Exchange, NFP, Defendant, represented by Daniel C. Perkins, Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Lawrence L. Lee, Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Susan M. Schaecher, Fisher & Phillips, LLP American Institute for Foreign Study, Defendant, represented by Daniel C. Perkins, Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Lawrence L. Lee, Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Susan M. Schaecher, Fisher & Phillips, LLP American Cultural Exchange, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Alan Birenbach, Rietz Law Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP Agent Au Pair, Defendant, represented by Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christian Dow Hammond, Dufford & Brown, P.C. & Lawrence Daniel Stone, Dufford & Brown, P.C. 20/20 Care Exchange, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christian Dow Hammond, Dufford & Brown, P.C. & Lawrence Daniel Stone, Dufford & Brown, P.C. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $502MM Verdict in Hip Implant MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a Dallas federal jury delivered a $502 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson and one of its subsidiaries. The jury issued the decision March 17 after a nine-week trial and one week of deliberations. At the trial, eight plaintiffs had claimed damages related to the companies' hip-replacement devices. More than 4,000 other plaintiffs have filed similar claims, which are pending in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. "We may have to whack them a couple more times, but I hope they will find a fair resolution for these," said Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who represents the winning plaintiffs, about Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics. According to Mr. Lanier, the jury held Depuy responsible for a design defect and failure to warn, Johnson & Johnson for a negligent undertaking, and both defendants for fraud and gross negligence. The verdict in Greer v. DePuy included $365 million in punitive damages, Mr. Lanier said. The companies plan to immediately file post-trial appellate motions to overturn the verdict, according to an email from Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for DePuy. "We have no greater responsibility than to the patients who use our products, and our goal is to create medical innovations that help people live more active and comfortable lives," Ms. Tinsley wrote. She noted that DePuy acted appropriately and responsibly in the design and testing of its hip-replacement product. At the trial, a team of lawyers from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Locke Lord defended the companies. "We expect this to be a pyrrhic victory for plaintiffs' counsel as the grounds for appeal are strong and the punitive damages will be reduced to around $10 million subject to the Texas statutory cap," John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- a Skadden partner from Washington, D.C. who is on the defense team, wrote in an email. Mr. Beisner also wrote that "Lanier has a history of pushing the evidentiary envelope at trial to score substantial verdicts, only to have those trial court victories reversed on appeal. We believe this may be another such case, as we have substantial grounds for appeal that we hope the Fifth Circuit will carefully consider." In October 2014, another Dallas federal jury issued a take-nothing verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson and Depuy in a related case and the first one tried in the MDL in the Northern District. JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEM: Appellate Court Sustains Demurrer ----------------------------------------------------------- Justice Alex C. McDonald of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case FAY STANIFORTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE JUDGES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent; JOHN CHIANG, as State Controller, etc., Real Party in Interest and Respondent, No. D068174 (Cal. Ct. App.) Faye Staniforth filed the an action on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons alleging, as its principal claim against The Judges' Retirement System (JRS), that JRS had not adhered to its obligations to pensioners under their interpretation of Olson I and that, as a result, over three decades worth of pension payments had been underpaid to pensioners. The principal claim, denominated the Olson I claims, sought a declaratory judgment that, under Olson I, jurists who served on California's trial court or appellate court bench during the time that section 68203 provided for unlimited cost of living adjustments, were entitled to have their pensions adjusted upward based on the applicable COLA for each year, and the limit on the amount of COLA's could not constitutionally be applied to pensions earned by jurists who served on California's trial court or appellate court bench during the time that section 68203 provided for unlimited COLA's. The Olson I claims raised by pensioners sought to compel the JRS to adhere to pensioners' interpretation of Olson I and to recalculate the amount of judicial pensions owed to pensioners using the uncapped COLA's, and to pay arrearages and interest for the decades of underpaid pension payments. The trial court sustains the demurrer filed by JRS and denied a subsequent motion which sought to amend to separately state certain additional claims by a subgroup of pensioners. On appeal the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One concluded that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer by JRS to pensioners' Olson I claims, without leave to amend but held that the trial court erroneously denied a subsequent motion that, in effect, sought leave to amend to separately state certain additional claims by a subgroup of pensioners, hence the remand of the case. On remand, an amended petition was filed that separately stated claims by the heir or successors to each of the 10 jurists, alleging the three retired appellate court justices had been underpaid their retirement allowances between 1977 and 1987, and alleging the seven retired trial judges had similarly been underpaid on their retirement allowances through 1981. The petition sought recovery of the unpaid principal amounts, along with interest, on behalf of the various heirs of or successors to the now-deceased jurists. JRS demurred to this amended petition, arguing that all the stated claims, which sought recovery for payments to the retired jurists that allegedly should have been paid over two decades before the present action was filed, were barred by the statute of limitations under any possibly applicable statute. The court sustained JRS's demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed the action. Petitioners appealed. Justice Alex C. McDonald affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A copy of Justice McDonald's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8f8kSmfrom Leagle.com. Jorn S. Rossi and Paul G. Mast for all Plaintiffs and Appellants For Defendant and Respondent, Harvey L. Leiderman -- hleiderman@reedsmith.com -- Dennis P. Maio -- dmaio@reedsmith.com -- Jeffrey R. Rieger -- jrieger@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Patricia D. Benke and Justices Alex C. McDonald and Joan Irion. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Violated Magnuson-Moss Act, "Pittman" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. L-3 Communications Eotech, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 11051-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and Common Law, actual, consequential, punitive and/or exemplary damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees from the Defendants who allegedly sold EOTech's holographic weapons sights ("EOTech Sights"). The Defendants manufacture EOTech Sights, which are technologically advanced gun sights with a viewing window that superimposes a "reticle" (e.g., crosshairs) upon the object the user is aiming the weapon. The sights are mounted on weapons to accurately engage targets in a range of extreme and varying environmental conditions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Andrew M. Gonyea, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: 248-841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com amg@millerlawpc.com - and - Keith Altman, Esq. Ari Kresch, Esq. EXCOLO LAW, PLL 26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400 Southfield, MI 48033 Telephone: (516) 456 5885 Facsimile: (516) 795 7599 E-mail: kaltman@lawampmmt.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 3 EoTech Class Actions Filed in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statues and unjust enrichment. The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss that may be incurred in connection with these matters because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 Communications, a Delaware corporation, is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image intensification equipment, and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a leading provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action in New York remains pending. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended and restated complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 Communications, a Delaware corporation, is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image intensification equipment, and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a leading provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. LAS VEGAS SANDS: "Fosbre" Action in Preliminary Stage ----------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Fosbre" consolidated action is in a preliminary stage. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as did co-defendant Mr. Weidner. This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("LVSC," or together with its subsidiaries "we" or the "Company") is a Fortune 500 company and the leading global developer of destination properties (integrated resorts) that feature premium accommodations, world-class gaming, entertainment and retail, convention and exhibition facilities, celebrity chef restaurants and other amenities. LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Najib" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Loubna Najib, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Le Bilboquet NY, LLC, d/b/a Le Bilboquet; and Philippe Delgrange, Case No. 1:16-cv-02008-PAE (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Le Bilboquet NY, LLC, is a New York corporation that operates Le Bilboquet restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Pension Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that for the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a long- running case against directors of a Lehman Brothers pension plan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of its earlier dismissal did not change the circuit's previous conclusion that "plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a breach of duty claim." The Supreme Court's ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014) vacated a July 2013 Second Circuit ruling (NYLJ, July 16, 2013) that had granted the Lehman directors a "presumption of prudence," shielding them from charges they had failed to anticipate that Lehman's stock would crash as the 2008 financial crisis deepened. The circuit said that even without the shield, the plaintiffs, a putative class of former Lehman employees who had invested retirement savings in the company's stock, could not assemble any set of facts to prove their claims. The plaintiffs had argued that the plan directors had breached fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, by continuing to purchase Lehman stock for its Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP. The ESOP was one of several retirement fund options employees could select. Under the ESOP's rules, all of its investments had to be in Lehman stock, except for cash reserves held to satisfy liquidity requirements. The plaintiffs said warning signs beginning six months before Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing should have caused the plan directors to stop purchasing new shares and sell what was in the fund. They estimated their clients lost about $50 million over the period. Judges Dennis Jacobs, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston, writing in a per curiam opinion in In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and ERISA Litig., 15-2229, rejected the claim. Quoting Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan's July 2015 ruling dismissing the case, the circuit said the plaintiffs' reliance on "a cacophony of ominous news articles, the volatility of Lehman's stock price, increased trading volumes, downgrades from various ratings agencies, and criticism from investment analysts" added up to no more than a showing of "mixed signals" the directors faced as the crisis developed. The panel relied on language in Fifth Third holding an ERISA fiduciary cannot be sued, except if there are "special circumstances" for accepting "the reliability of the market price as an unbiased assessment of a stock's value in light of all public information." The plaintiffs' claim that a July 2008 SEC order suspending certain kinds of short selling of Lehman stock did not amount to "special circumstances," the panel said, asserting their revised complaint merely "parrots language from Fifth Third." The panel also rejected claims against plan directors who were also directors of Lehman Brothers Holding Company, including Lehman's CEO, Richard Fuld. The plaintiffs claimed those directors had an obligation to warn the ESOP of Lehman's dire financial condition before it became public. The panel agreed with Kaplan's assessment that the plaintiffs had failed to set forth a plausible means of determining how they would uncover the alleged inside information. "Though this court has not yet squarely addressed the issue," the panel said, "we would be unlikely to conclude that the directors, including Mr. Fuld, had a duty to keep the plan managers apprised of material, nonpublic information regarding the soundness of Lehman as an investment." "ERISA's fiduciary duty of care requires prudence, not prescience," the panel said. "The same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries, including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under no duty to diversify the ESOP's holdings," the panel concluded. Partners Daniel Krasner -- krasner@whafh.com -- and Matthew Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz argued for the plaintiffs, along with Thomas McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- and Gregory Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- partners at Gainey McKenna & Egleston. They declined to comment. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partner Jonathan Youngwood and senior counsel Janet Gochman and associate Alexander Li, argued for the plan directors. Mr. Youngwood said his clients were "pleased, that after seven years of litigation, the circuit has affirmed dismissal for a second time." Todd Fishman -- todd.fishman@allenovery.com -- a partner at Allen & Overy, represented Richard Fuld. He did not respond to a request for comment. Related Decisions: Alex E. Rinehart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Jo Anne Buzzo, Monique Miller Fong, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Maria DeSousa, Linda DeMizio, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Richard S. Fuld, Jr., MaComber, Erin M. Callan, Wendy M. Uvino, The Employee Benefit Plans Committee, John Doe, 1-10, Mary Pat Archer, Amitabh Arora, Michael Branca, Evelyne Estey, Adam Feinstein, David Romhilt, Defendant-Appellees,15-2229. For the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a long-running case against directors of a Lehman Brothers pension plan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of its earlier dismissal did not change the circuit's previous conclusion that "plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a breach of duty claim." The Supreme Court's ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014) vacated a July 2013 Second Circuit ruling (NYLJ, July 16, 2013) that had granted the Lehman directors a "presumption of prudence," shielding them from charges they had failed to anticipate that Lehman's stock would crash as the 2008 financial crisis deepened. The circuit said that even without the shield, the plaintiffs, a putative class of former Lehman employees who had invested retirement savings in the company's stock, could not assemble any set of facts to prove their claims. The plaintiffs had argued that the plan directors had breached fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, by continuing to purchase Lehman stock for its Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP. The ESOP was one of several retirement fund options employees could select. Under the ESOP's rules, all of its investments had to be in Lehman stock, except for cash reserves held to satisfy liquidity requirements. The plaintiffs said warning signs beginning six months before Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing should have caused the plan directors to stop purchasing new shares and sell what was in the fund. They estimated their clients lost about $50 million over the period. Judges Dennis Jacobs, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston, writing in a per curiam opinion in In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and ERISA Litig., 15-2229, rejected the claim. Quoting Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan's July 2015 ruling dismissing the case, the circuit said the plaintiffs' reliance on "a cacophony of ominous news articles, the volatility of Lehman's stock price, increased trading volumes, downgrades from various ratings agencies, and criticism from investment analysts" added up to no more than a showing of "mixed signals" the directors faced as the crisis developed. The panel relied on language in Fifth Third holding an ERISA fiduciary cannot be sued, except if there are "special circumstances" for accepting "the reliability of the market price as an unbiased assessment of a stock's value in light of all public information." The plaintiffs' claim that a July 2008 SEC order suspending certain kinds of short selling of Lehman stock did not amount to "special circumstances," the panel said, asserting their revised complaint merely "parrots language from Fifth Third." The panel also rejected claims against plan directors who were also directors of Lehman Brothers Holding Company, including Lehman's CEO, Richard Fuld. The plaintiffs claimed those directors had an obligation to warn the ESOP of Lehman's dire financial condition before it became public. The panel agreed with Kaplan's assessment that the plaintiffs had failed to set forth a plausible means of determining how they would uncover the alleged inside information. "Though this court has not yet squarely addressed the issue," the panel said, "we would be unlikely to conclude that the directors, including Mr. Fuld, had a duty to keep the plan managers apprised of material, nonpublic information regarding the soundness of Lehman as an investment." "ERISA's fiduciary duty of care requires prudence, not prescience," the panel said. "The same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries, including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under no duty to diversify the ESOP's holdings," the panel concluded. Partners Daniel Krasner and Matthew Guiney of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz argued for the plaintiffs, along with Thomas McKenna and Gregory Egleston, partners at Gainey McKenna & Egleston. They declined to comment. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partner Jonathan Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- and senior counsel Janet Gochman and associate Alexander Li, argued for the plan directors. Mr. Youngwood said his clients were "pleased, that after seven years of litigation, the circuit has affirmed dismissal for a second time." Todd Fishman, a partner at Allen & Overy, represented Richard Fuld. He did not respond to a request for comment. Related Decisions: Alex E. Rinehart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Jo Anne Buzzo, Monique Miller Fong, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Maria DeSousa, Linda DeMizio, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Richard S. Fuld, Jr., MaComber, Erin M. Callan, Wendy M. Uvino, The Employee Benefit Plans Committee, John Doe, 1-10, Mary Pat Archer, Amitabh Arora, Michael Branca, Evelyne Estey, Adam Feinstein, David Romhilt, Defendants-Appellees,15-2229 Practice Area(s): AppellateCorporate and Securities Industry: Cases and CourtsIn-house LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Faces UA Local Fund Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ UA Local 13 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Lendingclub Corporation, Renaud Laplanche, Carrie Dolan, Daniel T. Ciporin, Jeffrey Crowe, Rebecca Lynn, John J. Mack, Mary Meeker, John C. (Hans) Morris, Lawrence H. Summers, Simon Williams, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, and Does 1- 25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV537868 (Cal., Super. Ct., San Mateo County, March 22, 2016), seeks to pursue strict liability and negligence remedies under the Securities 14 Act of 1933 regarding materially false and misleading Statements. On August 27, 2014, LendingClub filed its Registration Statement with the SEC on Form S-1. The Registration Statement was subsequently amended and declared effective on December 10, 2014, and the Company filed the final Prospectus for the Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, on December 11, 2014. The Company sold 50.3 million shares at $15.00 per share, the selling stockholders sold another 7.7 million shares, and the underwriters of the Offering exercised their option to purchase an additional 8.7 million shares, bringing the total number of shares sold to 66.7 million. LendingClub operates as an online marketplace that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. Its marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, super prime consumer loans, unsecured education and patient finance loans, and unsecured small business loans. The Company also offers investors an opportunity to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit characteristics. It serves investors, such as retail investors, high-net-worth individuals and families, banks and finance companies, insurance companies, hedge funds, foundations, pension plans and university endowments. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Conrad Walton, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. James I. Jaconette ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com amesj@rgrdlaw.com LAIBCO LLC: Faces "Menjivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeannette Menjivar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Laibco, LLC, a California limited liability company; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC614307 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Laibco, LLC is a nursing facility and convalescent hospital. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 LERNER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cisneros" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Cisneros and Faranak Safa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lerner New York Inc., a Delaware corporation dba New York & Co; Does 1-10, individuals, and Does 1-10, business entities, inclusive, Case No. BC614197 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016), alleges that Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the proper wage in violation of the California Labor Code. Lerner New York Inc. is a specialty manufacturer and retailer of women's fashion apparel and accessories business entities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir Mostafavi, Esq. MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC 11835 W Olympic Blvd., STE 1055 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 473-1111 Facsimile: (310) 473-2222 E-mail: amir@mostafavilaw.com LINDE CORPORATION: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Trevorah" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Trevorah, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Linde Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-UNa (N.D. Penn., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and litigation cost, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Defendant owns and operates a company that primarily services Pennsylvania's natural gas industry, providing customers with services such as, for example, the construction, installation, inspection, testing, and/or maintenance of well pads, pipelines, waterlines, sewage and waste disposal systems, compressor stations, water intake systems, and trenchless technology systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jonathan Petula, Esq. CROSSOVER LAW, LLC 1143 Northern Blvd #121 Clark Summit, PA 18411 Telephone: (570) 561 1080 Facsimile: (877) 815 6530 E-mail: brian@crossoverlaw.com - and - Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Rd Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884 2491 Facsimile: (215) 884 2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com LITHIA MOTORS: Tendered Defense of Class Actions to Auto Makers --------------------------------------------------------------- Lithia Motors, Inc. has tendered defense of class action cases to car manufacturers, and the manufacturers have honored their contractual defense and indemnity obligations to date, Lithia Motors said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In September 2015, Volkswagen and related entities admitted utilizing software in certain diesel engine vehicles to detect when they were being emissions tested and to temporarily change performance to improve results. According to Automotive News, approximately 11 million vehicles built between 2009 and 2015 are affected and will be recalled and Volkswagen is potentially facing lawsuits and significant penalties from regulators worldwide. The current and future impact on Volkswagen's operations, consumer reputation and future vehicle demand is unclear, as is the effect on our business for the Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche brands. Lithia currently operates five Volkswagen, three Audi and one Porsche stores, and approximately 3% of 2015 and 2014 new vehicle unit sales were within these brands. "Changes in demand for Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche vehicles could significantly affect our business from those brands," the Company said. Certain of the Company's related entities that operate its Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche stores have been named as defendants or otherwise served in certain putative class actions filed by automobile owners against dealerships selling these brands. The Company has tendered defense of these cases to the manufacturers, and the manufacturers have honored their contractual defense and indemnity obligations to date. Lithia Motors is an operator of automotive franchises and a retailer of new and used vehicles and related services. LOVE GRACE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Juice Product Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- James Anestis, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Love Grace, Inc. and Love Grace, LLC, Case No. 03079/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March 18, 2016), alleges that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in their products. According to the lawsuit, the labels and advertising: -- fail to indicate that the products maybe unsafe for human consumption; -- omit any information regarding the treatment of the Products subsequent and in addition to being cold-pressed; -- fail to indicate that the products are "not been pasteurized"; -- omit any information regarding the treatment of the Products by high pressure pasteurization; and -- omit any qualifying information regarding the production of the Products as "cold-pressed," thereby implying to reasonable consumers that the Products have only been subjected to being cold-pressed. Love Grace Inc. manufactures, sells, market, distributes, advertises, and promotes juice products throughout the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-ESPTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Facsimile: (212) 563-7108 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Turner" Files Suit Over Defective Flooring --------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Turner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02772-AJT-TRJ (M.D. La., March 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages arising from and relating to Plaintiff's purchase and installation of defendant's Chinese wood flooring materials (Chinese Flooring). The action arises out of the Defendant's scheme to import into the United States, and falsely warrant, advertise and sell, Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards, which renders the Chinese Flooring defective. The Defendant manufacturers, sells, and distributes, Chinese Flooring that allegedly emits and off-gases excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators is a Delaware corporation with its office located at Toano, Virginia. It is one of the largest specialty retailers of hardwood flooring in the United States selling primarily to homeowners directly or to contractor's action on behalf of homeowners through its extensive network of retail stores nationwide. Lumber Liquidators has mills in, and buys many of its source wood flooring material from, China. The company recently established a representative office in Shanghai, China and assumed "direct control" of its entire product sourcing in China (through its headquarters in China). The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Klibert, Esq. Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536 1186 Facsimile: (985) 536 6446 E-mail: kklibert@becnellaw.com schristina@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com LYFT INC: Judge Questions Adequacy of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge posed tough questions on March 24 about the adequacy of a proposed $12.25 million settlement between Lyft Inc. and its drivers but held off on ruling. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California seemed particularly skeptical that the deal sufficiently compensates the company's most frequent drivers. The lawsuit claims that all Lyft drivers should be classified as employees -- not independent contractors -- and are entitled to reimbursement for mileage and other costs back to May 2012. "I have always been of the view that these claims are much more valuable for the people who drove full time," Judge Chhabria said during a hearing on preliminary approval for the proposed settlement. While the judge acknowledged that the settlement uses a formula that apportions a band of "frequent" drivers 50 percent more money compared to infrequent drivers, he held open that he may decide that's insufficient. Arguing for Lyft, James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest suggested that if the judge feels the premium for frequent drivers is not high enough, the court should instruct parties to address that without dismantling the overall "structure" of the peace deal. But Judge Chhabria also also grilled lawyers for the drivers -- Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan and Matthew Carlson of Carlson Legal Services -- about whether the overall amount of the settlement is really enough. At the hearing, he directed plaintiffs lawyers to walk him through how they calculated the potential value of a win. He disagreed with some of their numbers, and was surprised to learn that -- because the number of Lyft drivers and users has grown so fast -- potential damages may now be more than double the $70 million plaintiffs estimated when the settlement terms were hashed out last November. Taking into account Lyft's latest driver data, the settlement is now about 8 percent of the potential value of the drivers' damages claims, Liss-Riordan acknowledged. When the settlement was agreed to, it represented closer to 17 percent of potential damages, based on Lyft data current through June 2015. The plaintiffs lawyers are asking for one-third of the $12.25 million settlement, or $3.67 million. "I don't think counsel for plaintiffs have represented plaintiffs anything less than tenaciously," Judge Chhabria said, making clear he did not think there had been any "improper collusion" of any sort. But he stressed that his job is still to determine whether the settlement is reasonable. Under the terms of the settlement, the average payment Lyft drivers will receive is $56.14. However, those who drove more than 30 hours per week for half the weeks they drove for Lyft would be paid 50 percent more than those who drove less than that amount, given that their claims for employee status are seen as stronger. On average, they would be paid more than $670. Lyft says only 755 people are "frequent drivers," and that 99.5 percent of its drivers do not surpass that threshold, dragging down the average payment. Judge Chhabria seemed to discount arguments by a group of drivers arguing the settlement should be rejected because it fails to reclassify drivers as employees. They were represented at the hearing by Costa Kerestenzis -- ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com -- of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. Judge Chhabria noted there is a real dispute over whether drivers should be classified that way, and that there was risk for both sides about how a jury would resolve that issue. He also seemed to view favorably some of the nonmonetary aspects of the settlement despite the fact that they do not address the classification issue. Aside from the money, the settlement includes changes to Lyft's terms of service that provide job security protections that are actually more akin to what are typically provided to independent contractors. Specifically, the drivers are to be provided with a reason for any termination, and can contest the reasoning in arbitration if they feel it is unfair. Judge Chhabria pressed Mr. Kerestenzis on why that was "more than minimal protection." MARLTON 73: Faces "Sanford" Suit Over Wrongful Termination ---------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Sanford v. Marlton 73 Restaurant, LLC; Hristos Kolovos and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001050-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment for discrimination due to her age. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the complaint going forward, both as to the specific Plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. Marlton 73 Restaurant, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, engaged in the restaurant business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 MDL 2058: 2nd Cir. Vacates Order Denying Flanagan's Fee Request --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the district court's order denying a fee request by Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim in the securities class action lawsuit, In re Bank of America Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 09 MDL 2058 (DC) (S.D.N.Y.). In April 2009, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (Ohio Lead Plaintiffs) hired Flanagan to represent them in an action against Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and several officers and directors of the two companies. Ohio Lead Plaintiffs' action was one of 28 separate securities lawsuits alleging the insufficiency of public disclosures made in connection with the companies' merger. On April 14, 2009, Flanagan and the Ohio Attorney General, acting on behalf of Ohio Lead Plaintiffs and as their statutory legal counsel, executed a retention agreement. Ohio Lead Plaintiffs also retained the law firms of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman (BLB&G) and Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer (Kaplan Fox). On June 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the 28 separate actions into a single class action lawsuit. The district court then appointed a group of Lead Plaintiffs that included Ohio Lead Plaintiffs. The district court also appointed BLB&G; Kaplan Fox; and Kessler, Topaz Meltzer & Check as Co-Lead Counsel. All Lead Plaintiffs (including Ohio Lead Plaintiffs) had executed retainer agreements with their respective counsel (including Co-Lead Counsel and Flanagan) that included an identical fee schedule. The fee schedule capped total attorneys' fees for the actions at a specific percentage of class recovery; the fee schedule was set forth in a grid, such that the percentage compensation was graduated according to settlement amount and status of the case at the time of resolution. Lead Plaintiffs ultimately agreed to settle their claims for $2,425,000,000. On February 19, 2013, with the prior approval of Lead Plaintiffs, Co-Lead Counsel filed a request that "Plaintiffs' Counsel" be awarded attorneys' fees in an amount representing 6.56% of the settlement fund less Plaintiffs' Counsel's expenses (amounting to $158,549,766.46 in total fees), as well as reimbursement of $8,082,828.32 in litigation expenses. As support for the requested percentage, Co-Lead Counsel affirmed that Plaintiffs' Counsel had expended 193,547 hours in the litigation, amounting to a lodestar value of $88,307,135; the requested fees yielded a multiplier of 1.8 on the lodestar. The fee request explicitly defined "Plaintiffs' Counsel" to include Flanagan. The request also included Flanagan's hours and expenses in its hour and expense totals. The district court denied the portion of the fee request pertaining to Flanagan's fees and expenses. The district court noted that it was not contesting that Flanagan may have done "valuable work" in the litigation and explicitly declined to challenge Flanagan's claims regarding the quantity and nature of that work. On April 8, 2013, the district court entered an order that awarded Co-Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $152,414,235.89, plus interest, and litigation expenses in the amount of $8,069,985.04. The district court explained that Flanagan was not entitled to its fee because "the record does not establish that services rendered by Flanagan were for the benefit of the class." On appeal, Flanagan argues that the proper standard for assessing Flanagan's fee application is not the "substantial benefit" test outlined in Victor v. Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., 623 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 2010), but rather a standard of deference to lead plaintiffs and that the Second Circuit should apply the analytical framework in In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, 404 F.3d 173, 199 (3d Cir. 2005) ("Cendant II"). In his Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/9zzkitfrom Leagle.com, Judge Walker, Jr. held that: -- "the district court should have afforded a rebuttable presumption of correctness to Lead Plaintiffs' proposed allocation of fees to Flanagan. Lead Plaintiffs consistently maintained, in submissions before the court and through statements made by Co- Lead Counsel, that Flanagan's fee was reasonable both with respect to the amount of work done and in light of the firm's overall contribution to the class. While the district court is still tasked with overseeing the compensation decisions of Lead Plaintiffs, those decisions were nonetheless entitled to greater deference than they received." -- "We are also troubled by the district court's order prohibiting Co-Lead Counsel from sharing their fees with Flanagan. While we appreciate the district court's understanding of its role as guardian of class rights, we note that if Lead Counsel were to share with Flanagan a portion of their own awarded fee, such an arrangement would not reduce class recovery at all. Where, as here, there has been no suggestion of corruption or collusion by class counsel, we can see no reason to interfere in any decision Co-Lead Counsel might make to share their own portion of fees with a law firm that produced work at Co-Lead Counsel's behest." The Second Circuit panel consists of Judge Walker, Jr., and Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Dennis Jacobs. The appellate case is captioned, FLANAGAN, LIEBERMAN, HOFFMAN & SWAIM, Appellant, v. OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, Movants-Appellees, v. PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS, THE PUBLIC PENSION FUND GROUP, STEVEN J. SKLAR, AS (IRA ACCOUNT BENEFICIARY), ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RHONDA WILSON, MICHAEL R. BAHNMAIER, ALMA ALVAREZ, MARK ADAMS, ELIZABETH EAGEN, VERNON C. DAILEY, RICHARD ADAME, ARLENE KAHN, PETRA CHATMAN, STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS ABP, GRANT MITCHELL, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO, STEVE R. GRABER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF CLAIMS OF THE SRG 2008 TRUST, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX FUND, SCHWAB 1000 INDEX FUND, SCHWAB INSTITUTIONAL SELECT SP500 FUND, SCHWAB DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB CORE EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB PREMIER EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL US LARGE COMPANY INDEX FUND, SCHWAB TOTAL STOCK MARKET INDEX FUND, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB MARKETTRACK GROWTH, PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB MARKETTRACK BALANCED PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB INVESTMENTS, SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST, DR. SALOMON MELGEN, FLOR MELGEN, SFM HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, INTERNATIONAL FUND MANAGEMENT S.A., DEKA INTERNATIONAL S.A. LUXEMBURG, DEKA INVESTMENT GMBH, DI, AARON KATZ, JOEL KATZ, JEREMY FINEBERG, SYLVIA WEISSMANN, PARKER FAMILY INVESTMENTS L.L.C., JEFFREY R. PARKER, THE 1997 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, DREW E. PARKER, THE 1994 DREW E. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, KEITH D. PARKER, JULIE M. SORIN, THE 1991 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, THE 1994 JULIE P. MANTELL FAMILY TRUST, MICHAEL A. PARKER, MARK D. WENDER, ELLIOT WENDER, PENINA WENDER, STANLEY L. WENDER, RAZELLE M. WENDER, JILL W. GOLDSTEIN, JERRY E. FINGER, AMBASSADOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SELECT INVESTORS EXCHANGE FUND, L.P., RICHARD FINGER, JEF FAMILY TRUST, 1976 REAL ESTATE TRUST, WALTER FINGER, THE JERRY E. FINGER FAMILY TRUST D/T/D 12/28/1989, THE JERRY E. FINGER FAMILY TRUST, LEO R. JALENAK, PEGGY E. JALENAK, KERS & CO., ROBERT GEGNAS, 198 LOCHA DRIVE, JUPITER, FL 33458-7752, STEVEN L. SHAPIRO, HARVEY M. MITNICK, NATHAN A. FRIEDMAN, BONNIE FRIEDMAN, KENNETH A. CIULLO, JOANNA CIULLO, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND AS SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMMON RETIREMENT FUND, SCHWAB FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., GARY A. CARLIN, NELSON CHAI, KENNETH D. LEWIS, JOHN A. THAIN, WILLIAM BARNET, III, FRANK P. BRAMBLE, SR., JOHN T. COLLINS, GARY L. COUNTRYMAN, TOMMY R. FRANKS, CHARLES K. GIFFORD, MONICA C. LOZANO, WALTER E. MASSEY, THOMAS J. MAY, PATRICIA E. MITCHELL, THOMAS M. RYAN, O. TEMPLE SLOAN, JR., MEREDITH R. SPANGLER, ROBERT L. TILLMAN, JACKIE M. WARD, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., NEIL A. COTTY, JOE L. PRICE, BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES L.L.C., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BANK OF AMERICA, J. STEELE ALPHIN, AMY WOODS BRINKLEY, BARBARA J. DESOER, LIAM E. MCGEE, TIMOTHY J. MAYOPOULOS, BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, BRUCE L. HAMMONDS, RICHARD K. STRUTHERS, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS, BANK OF AMERICA COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS, KEITH T. BANKS, TERESA BRENNER, CAROL T. CHRIST, ARMANDO M. CODINA, VIRGIS W. COLBERT, GREGORY CURL, JOHN D. FINNEGAN, GREGORY FLEMING, FOX-PITT KELTON COCHRAN CARONIA WALLER (USA) L.L.C., J.C. FLOWERS & CO., L.L.C., JUDITH MAYHEW JONAS, PETER KRAUS, AULANA L. PETERS, JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, ANN N. REESE, MICHAEL ROSS, CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI, PETER STINGI, THOMAS K. MONTAG, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, KENNETH D. DAVIS, MARTIN I. FINEBERG, KENNETH A. LEWIS, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., 4 WORLD FINANCIAL CNETER, NEW YORK, NY 10080, JOSEPH L. PRICE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-2919 (2nd Cir.). Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim is represented by: Kevin P. Parker, Esq. Michelle M. Carreras, Esq. Evan M. Janush, Esq. Arthur Miller, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, TX 77069 Tel: (713)659-5200 MERCADOLIBRE INC: Parties Ordered to Produce Evidence ----------------------------------------------------- MercadoLibre, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class action lawsuit by Consumidores Financieros have been ordered to produce evidence. On June 13, 2014, the consumer association called "Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa" ("Consumidores Financieros") filed a class action against the Company's Argentine subsidiary, MercadoLibre S.R.L. ("MercadoLibre"), in the First Instance National Court on Commercial Matters Number Four of Buenos Aires, Argentina (the "Court"). Consumidores Financieros acts on behalf of customers who have used MercadoPago in Argentina and claims that MercadoLibre has infringed certain consumer provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, mostly related to certain information to be provided to consumers in relation to the transactions performed through MercadoPago by users holding credit cards that are not associated to MercadoLibre's promotions, and charged them excessive interest rates when users paid by installments. Consumidores Financieros seeks that (i) MercadoLibre provides clear and complete information about the costs of its service MercadoPago in Argentina, (ii) MercadoLibre reimburse users who have used MercadoPago in the last 10 years, an amount equivalent to the difference between the interest rate actually charged by MercadoLibre for the users that pay through MercadoPago by installments and the interest rate set down by the section 36 of the CPA in cases of violation of the duty of information as per section 36 (average annual rate set down by the Argentine Central Bank, which is 26.31% as of the date of this report), (iii) the Court establish the interest rate to be charged in future transactions where users pay by installments, estimate by Consumidores Financieros in twice the interest rate charged by the Banco de la Nacion Argentina in commercial transactions (as of the date of this report the doubled interest rate is estimated at 50%), and (iv) condemn MercadoLibre to pay punitive damages on the amount of AR$500 per each transaction performed in alleged violation to section 36 of the CPA. The Company filed its defense on October 3, 2014. On April 17, 2015, the court decided to begin with the evidence stage, and ordered the production of the parties' evidence. "The opinion of our management, based on the external legal counsel opinion, is that the risk of MercadoLibre losing the case is remote," the Company said. MercadoLibre, Inc. hosts the largest online commerce platform in Latin America, which is focused on enabling e-commerce and its related services. MI LLC: Texas Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Dewan" ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division ruled on the parties' motion in the case MATTHEW DEWAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO, Defendant, Civil Action No. H-15-1746 (S.D. Tex.) Matthew Dewan brought a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and alleges that from approximately September 2010 through November 2012, Dewan worked as a nonexempt drilling fluid specialist for M-I, L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO. A drilling fluid specialist's job is to ensure the properties of the drilling fluid (a/k/a drilling mud) are within designed specifications. Dewan asserts that in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), instead of paying drilling fluid specialists time and a half for all hours worked beyond 40 per week, M-I pays them a fixed sum that does not take into consideration the number of hours per week that they have worked. Dewan also argues that if M-I has classified him as exempt from FLSA's overtime compensation, M-I has misclassified him. He further charges that M-I failed to keep accurate records of its employees' time worked. Dewan originally filed the suit on December 14, 2014, in the Southern District of Texas. Dewan's original complaint defines the FLSA class as: "All current and former drilling fluid specialists or any other employee who: (1) worked at any business located in the United States that was owned, operated, and/or acquired by Defendant during the class period; (2) claim they were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation or was [sic] an hourly employee and now seek payment for overtime hours worked; and/or (3) were compensated on any basis where they were not properly paid at a rate of time and a half for hours worked in excess of forty (40)." Meanwhile, Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour (the Syed Plaintiffs), also former drilling fluid specialists for M-I alleging that they were improperly classified as exempt employees and not paid overtime under the FLSA and additionally alleging Rule 23 class action for wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, had previously filed a collective action in the Eastern District of California on October 18, 2012 and moved for conditional nationwide certification on July 8, 2013. The Syed Plaintiffs subsequently filed in the Southern District of Texas a motion to intervene and transfer the later filed Dewan matter to the Eastern District of California. The District Judge in Texas granted the motion. M-I argued, however, that the Syed Plaintiffs' statement of facts in support of a current collateral estoppel argument demonstrated that their prior motion to transfer the Dewan matter to the Eastern District of California was made in bad faith upon misrepresentations for the purposes of delay and forum shopping. Accordingly, Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishi of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Order dated June 18, 2015, available at http://is.gd/d4N6p9 from Leagle.com, grated Defendant's motion to transfer the Dewan case to the Southern District of Texas to promote judicial efficiency and avoid conflicting piecemeal litigation. Now before the Texas court are (1) defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Dewan and William J. Casey do not qualify as exempt employees under the administrative, outside sales, and/or combination exemptions from the FLSA overtime provision and (2) Plaintiff Dewan and Opt-in plaintiff Casey's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings as to M-I's affirmative defenses relating to exemptions and good faith under the FLSA. M-I argues that because the action was never even conditionally certified as a collective action and the time to move to do so has expired, because Casey has opted in only as a collective action participant, and because Dewan has never moved to amend to name Casey as a plaintiff, Casey has not appeared as a named party and his claims should be severed and dismissed. Alternatively, if the court considers Casey's claims on the merits, they should be dismissed for the same reasons as Dewan's. Dewan and Casey argue that conditional class certification is not necessary or sufficient for a representative action to exist under the FLSA because Congress expressly conferred on employees the right to become a party to any collective action. Parties may opt-in by filing consents before as well as after conditional certification, or even if no class certification is requested. Judge Harmon ordered that the motions to dismiss opt-in plaintiff Casey are denied and Casey may proceed as a full plaintiff. M-I's motion for summary judgment as to dismissal of Casey is denied and Dewan's motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings as to certain affirmative defenses is denied. M-I's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Dewan and Casey are not entitled to overtime pay because they qualify as exempt employees under the administrative exemptions and that M-I did not misclassify them is granted. A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8fq98ofrom Leagle.com. Matthew Dewan, Plaintiff, represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-581-9001 - and - R Ira Spiro, Esq. SPIRO LAW CORP 10573 West Pico Blvd. 865 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-235-2350 M-I, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Patricia S Riordan -- priordan@morganlewis.com - at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Samuel Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Martin J Regimbal -- mjr@kullmanlaw.com -- Robert P Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- at The Kullman Firm Schlumberger Technology Corp, Defendant, represented by Patricia S Riordan -- priordan@morganlewis.com - at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Sarmad Syed, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer L. Conner, Spiro Law Corp., Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp. &Richard J Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC Ashley Balfour, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer L. Conner, Spiro Law Corp., Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp. & Richard J Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Parwani" Class Suit in S.D. Cal. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned Nargis P. Parwani and Pouya Abdolrasoul, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00691-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal., San Diego, March 22, 2016). Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and information management services. It collects on credit cards, automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Asil Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Telephone: (858) 348 4938 Facsimile: (858) 348 4939 E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com MINNESOTA: Status Update on June 6 in "Jensen" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Molly Willms, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Minnesota appears to be complying with a settlement agreement related to the state's care of disabled individuals, but the criteria for evaluating compliance leave a lot to be desired, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn. ruled. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank announced that conclusion after evaluating the ninth update of Minnesota's compliance with the settlement in Jensen. v. DHS, a 2009 class action focusing on the care of disabled individuals in state-run facilities. Jensen accused Minnesota of improperly restraining and secluding as many as 300 patients with developmental disabilities in a residential facility. Judge Frank approved the state's Olmstead plan, named for the landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., on Sept. 29, 2015. In Olmstead the Supreme Court found the unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the parties mediated aspects of the case last year, the state's reporting requirement on compliance with the terms of the settlement was stayed. As a result, a 113-page report submitted Feb. 2 covered the period from May 1 - Sept. 30, 2015. Judge Frank noted the state has developed a new "internal structure" to monitor compliance with the settlement. The Jensen Implementation Office, within the Minnesota Department of Human Services, will develop a "Department Wide Quality Assurance Plan, a Jensen Implementation Office specific Quality Assurance Plan, expanded Jensen Internal Reviewer responsibilities, and start[] the process for contracting with Independent Subject Matter Experts," according to the report. These experts will provide external evaluations of the state's compliance with the plan, Frank wrote. But he also expressed concern, complaining the report does not go far enough to verify its current compliance -- or set up a method to verify future compliance in its updates. "Verification information should be included in the body of the report, in a separate table, or both, connecting the report information to the verification steps," the judge said. "Providing verification in the report itself will hopefully eliminate the need for the Court or the Court Monitor to independently evaluate the report content." Frank's non-exhaustive list of examples included subject matter expert evaluation of staff training and restraint use following 911 calls, and internal evaluation of community support services. The judge also expressed concern that while several of the "evaluation criteria" have been met, but there are no deadlines for actions to meet the remaining criteria. Frank ended by tasking the state with clearing "public misconception" that the Olmstead plan and the Jensen settlement will limit choices for people with disabilities. The judge cautioned against this critical view of the programs becoming a reality when he approved the Olmstead plan, advising the state in his September ruling that the plan "is not about and should not be construed as forcing the closure of certain facilities or forcing integration where it is neither appropriate nor desirable." "Only when such misconceptions and fears are eliminated will the Class members and individuals affected by this landmark settlement agreement be able to say that their lives have truly improved," Frank wrote, noting that he has heard ongoing concerns from individuals and families. The parties will next meet for a status update on June 6, 2016. The case captioned, James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians, Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota, Defendants., Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.) MIZUHO BANK: Ill. Judge Threatens to Move Bitcoin Suit to Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gary Feinerman of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied a motion to dismiss the case GREGORY GREENE and JOSEPH LACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD. and MARK KARPELES, Defendants, No. 14 C 1437 (N.D. Ill.) Judge Feinerman, however, said the putative class counsel must file by April 4, 2016, a third amended complaint naming as a putative class representative an Illinois resident who is a member of the so-called Deposit Subclass. If counsel fails to do so, the case will be transferred to the Central District of California, where plaintiff Joseph Lack resides and where Mizuho is subject to personal jurisdiction. Mt. Gox Bitcoin (Mt. Gox) is a digital payment system, and bitcoins are the system's unit of account. Mt. Gox has its base in Tokyo, Japan and Mark Karpeles was Mt. Gox's President, CEO, and majority shareholder. To fund their activities on the exchange, Mt. Gox users could either (1) transfer bitcoins directly into their accounts at Mt. Gox or (2) wire fiat currency (government-issued money, like dollars and euros) to Mizuho Bank, which would deposit the money into a bank account it held on behalf of Mt. Gox. Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (Mizuho), which is headquartered in Tokyo, earned service fees from processing the wire deposits. To withdraw fiat currency, a Mt. Gox user would make a request through her account at Mt. Gox, which would send the request, along with the user's banking details, to Mizuho, which in turn would transfer the requested amount to the user's bank. Gregory Greene is an Illinois resident who opened a Mt. Gox account in 2012. Joseph Lack, a California resident, did not join Mt. Gox until January 22, 2014, about six months after Mizuho had barred all withdrawals from its Mt. Gox account. He wired $40,000 in fiat currency from his local Wells Fargo branch to Mizuho on February 3, 2014, and Mizuho accepted the transfer. On February 7, 2014, Karpeles halted all Mt. Gox users' ability to withdraw bitcoins from the Mt. Gox Bitcoin exchange. On February 24, the Mt. Gox website became inaccessible, and on February 28, Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan. Greene was unable to access approximately $25,000 in bitcoins from his Mt. Gox account. Lack was unable to recover his $40,000 in fiat currency from Mizuho, and that sum was not reflected in his Mt. Gox account. Greene filed a suit against various Mt. Gox entities and Karpeles, and then in an amended complaint added Lack as a plaintiff and Mizuho among others, as a defendant. The case was stayed for some time, and after a settlement attempt failed, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all defendants other than Mizuho and Karpeles. The operative complaint has seven counts. Counts I-III name only Karpeles. Count IV is brought by Greene and Lack on behalf of the entire putative class and alleges that Mizuho, in limiting withdrawals from Mt. Gox's bank account, tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' agreements with Mt. Gox by undermining Mt. Gox's ability to do business. Counts V-VII are brought on behalf only of Lack and the "Deposit Subclass," defined as those class members who deposited fiat currency into their Mt. Gox accounts through Mizuho after Mizuho had stopped processing withdrawals. Count V alleges that Mizuho unjustly enriched itself by accepting transaction fees in connection with incoming wire transfers from Deposit Subclass members after it had halted Mt. Gox withdrawals without disclosing that it had done so. Count VI alleges that Mizuho fraudulently concealed from Lack and the Deposit Subclass that it had halted such withdrawals. Count VII seeks an order requiring Mizuho to provide a full and complete accounting of all transactions or records relating to the deposit, transfer, and processing of the Deposit Subclass's assets. Mizuho moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. A copy of Judge Feinerman's memorandum opinion and order dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/XV5aRWfrom Leagle.com. Gregory Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia Elaine Hwang -- ahwang@edelson.com -- Ari Jonathan Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson, Edelson PC -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Alexander T.H. Nguyen -- anguyen@edelson.com -- Benjamin Scott Thomassen -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- John Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- at Edelson P.C.; Robert A. Clifford -- rac@cliffordlaw.com -- Shannon Marie McNulty -- SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- at Clifford Law Offices; Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- at Woodrow & Peluso, LLC; Scott Bennett Kitei -- skitei@honigman.com -- at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Joseph Lack, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Jonathan Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Alexander T.H. Nguyen --anguyen@edelson.com -- John Aaron Lawson-- alawson@edelson.com -- at Edelson P.C.; Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- at Woodrow & Peluso, LLC Mark Karpeles, Defendant, represented by Mark Karpeles Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jason A. Frye -- jfrye@ngelaw.com -- Jonathan Stuart Quinn -- jquinn@ngelaw.com -- at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg; Jeffrey Resetarits -- jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Jerome Steven Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- John A. Nathanson -- john.nathanson@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP MOM BRANDS: Sued in Illinois Over Misbranded Oatmeal ---------------------------------------------------- Mario Aliano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mom Brands Company, LLC, and Post Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-03879 (Ill. Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants from misrepresenting that their food products contain maple syrup and/or maple sugar, when, in fact, maple syrup and maple sugar are not ingredients in the products. Mom Brands Company, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, which manufacture, market, distribute, and sell a variety of BetterOats Maple & Brown Sugar instant oatmeal products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq. Matthew C. De Re., Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com amy@attorneyzim.com jordan@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorney.zim.com MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss and to transfer a class action lawsuit remains pending. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital ("NGH") filed a class action suit against us and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, we and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. "In December 2015, we and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These motions are pending before the court. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe this suit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourself in this litigation," Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for oncology and autoimmune disease. MOUSTACHE COFFEE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Jarrod Secola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Moustache Coffee Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC614268 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016) alleges that Defendants: -- made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in California and, at the time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers, failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; -- charged Plaintiff's credit or debit cards, or third-party account without first obtaining Plaintiff's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer; -- failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result, the Complaint contends, all goods, wares, merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff under the automatic renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an unconditional gift. The Moustache Coffee Club, Inc. operates a website which markets coffee and coffee-related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com - and - Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrel@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com MRI INTERNATIONAL: Nevada Judge Certifies Class in Ponzi Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Nevada granted class certification to Japanese investors who claim they were duped into investing in a Las Vegas- based firm that was nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme. Nine Japanese investors sued MRI International Inc. its founder and officers in federal court on July 5, 2013. MRI International was founded in Las Vegas and operates a branch office in Tokyo, Japan. It holds itself out as a firm dealing in "medical account receivables" -- the account receivables that U.S. medical providers hold against insurance providers. But in their complaint, the plaintiffs said despite assurances that their investments were safe and managed by an independent escrow agent, in reality, "MRI used the investors' money to pay off earlier investors and fund its principals' lavish lifestyles." In addition, the plaintiffs said, MRI International "misled investors about U.S. regulatory and legal oversight and guarantees; and lied to Japanese regulators who investigated the scam." The investors also claimed that by the time they filed their lawsuit and asked the court to grant certification of a purported class of 8,700, MRI International had "stopped paying . . . its matured obligations" and its Las Vegas headquarters was empty. U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben granted the sought class certification, finding Shige Takiguchi and the other lead plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated that a common class does exist, and that defendant MRI International "makes common defense arguments against individual claims." McKibben said the potential plaintiff class is comprised of between 4,000 and 8,000 people, who invested in MRI International between July 5, 2008 and May 1, 2013, and expect a loss of investments through the alleged scheme. MRI International argued there is no way to prove on a class-wide basis that individual plaintiffs relied on the representations it made to them, but McKibben disagreed. "Individual issues of reliance are no bar to finding commonality," and MRI International made the same core representations to investors, including in written materials, the judge wrote. "The sales pitch was thus virtually identical from investor to investor," he said. MRI International also argued individual plaintiffs do not properly comprise a potential class, that a group of attorneys have filed similar actions in Japan, and if those attorneys prevail in Japan's courts, they are less likely to continue with the case. But McKibben found the argument "unpersuasive." He said defendants have substantial assets in the United States, which would be easier to collect, and MRI International's argument "implicitly concedes" the class contains members and non-members to the court actions in Japan. McKibben also dismissed MRI International's claim that the plaintiff class members lack credibility, and cited as proof 16 of 25 named plaintiffs did not attend or agree to attend depositions. McKibben said the named plaintiffs have been reduced from 25 to 9, thus rendering MRI International's argument moot. McKibben certified the class, which consists of all people who bought MRI International securities from July 5, 2008, through May 1, 2013, and were injured by defendants' actions. He excluded from the class 26 individuals who have existing court actions against MRI International in Japan. In a related criminal case, federal prosecutors last July charged Edwin Fujinaga, of Las Vegas, and Junzo Suzuki and Paul Suzuki, both of Tokyo, with eight counts of mail fraud and nine counts of wire fraud. Fujinaga also is charged with three counts of money-laundering. Fujinaga and the Suzukis owe thousands of investors more than $1.5 billion for money they fraudulently solicited from 2009 to 2013, U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden said in a statement. The case captioned, Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Mitsuaki Takita, Tatsuro Sakai, Shizuko Ishimori, Yuko Nakamura, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, and Hidenao Takama, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MRI International, Inc., Edwin J Fujinaga, Junzo Suzuki, Paul Musashi Suzuki, LVT, Inc., dba Sterling Escrow, and Does 1-500, Defendants., 2:13-cv- 01183-HDM-VCF (D. Nev.). MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated FLSA & NJMWL, "Houssam" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Lahcen Houssam, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSK Management, LLC, Limited Liability Company, Adams Pizza, Inc., Boonton Pizza Corporation, Caldwell Pizza, Inc., Elizabeth Pizza, Incorporated, Haroon Pizza, Inc., Jersey Pizza, Inc., Khan Enterprises, Inc., Leonia Pizza, Inc., Nek Pizza Enterprises, Inc., Pachiot Pizza, Inc., Passaic Pizza, Inc., Plainfield Pizza, Inc., Shaan Enterprises, Inc. and Does 1-30, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00932-MCA-MAH (Dist. Newark Div., February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Minimum Wage Law (NJMWL). Defendants together have operated approximately 47 Domino's franchise stores in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to Defendants' customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984 8100 Facsimile: (816) 984 8101 E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Kenneth B. Fromson, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298 3281 E-mail: KFromson@lawampm.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997 9150 Facsimile: (314) 997 9170 MTC NOVO: Set to Take Over G4S amid Inmate Abuse Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Afua Hirsch, writing for Sky News, reports that England's troubled young offender centers could be taken over by an American company accused of managing prisons riddled with violence, corruption and drugs. Two "Security and Training Centres" (STCs) are being sold by private security firm G4S, after evidence of abuse and neglect emerged at its Medway centre in January, leading to the arrest of five G4S officers. Another STC in Rainsbrook in Northamptonshire has already been taken away from G4S after inspectors found staff involved in drug use and "racist and degrading" treatment last year. Sky News has learned that one of the frontrunners to succeed G4S is MTC Novo, part of a company currently named in legal action in the US, where inmates claim they were abused. MTC runs the East Mississippi Correctional Facility, a prison described in legal documents as "an extraordinarily dangerous" place. Sky News has obtained CCTV footage from another MTC-run prison, Walnut Grove, depicting inmates set upon by gangs and savagely beaten. Security staff are nowhere to be seen. American civil liberties groups are backing litigation against Mississippi, whose prisons were run by MTC at the time of some of the allegations. Yet MTC Novo has already won control of Rainsbrook, a centre plagued by controversy since 15-year-old Gareth Myatt was killed there following a restraint in 2004. An inquest found failures in the running of the centre were partly responsible for his death. The prospect of MTC Novo succeeding G4S in running the centre is causing growing concern. "MTC has a pretty terrible record," said Carl Takei, attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "In 2015, a federal judge found that MTC had failed to take adequate steps to protect the security of prisoners inside, including by allowing prisoners to have their own gang escorts." "It's disturbing that MTC would be able to expand in the UK, given its record in the United States." British human rights groups have written to the Youth Justice Board, which manages the process of awarding STC contracts to companies, highlighting MTC's track record in the US. "The fact that they are looking to give this contract to a private company which, as far as I'm aware, is under investigation in at least one instance in the US, and in respect of a prison but also a class action that's ongoing, it's very concerning," said Tabitha Kassem from the Howard League for Penal Reform. "I also think that this company as far as I'm aware has no experience of running a residential establishment for vulnerable children." The Youth Justice Board said that it had rigorously assessed MTC Novo, and that the company "met the Ministry of Justice requirements in relation to capability, human rights and equalities". A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The company submitted a high quality tender which showed its extensive experience and understanding in managing and rehabilitating young people." MTC said it inherited pre-existing problems at the prisons it ran in Mississippi, and that under its ownership violence, drug use and disciplinary incidents had significantly reduced. But the sale of G4S's STCs has raised wider questions about the privatization of services for children. Two young people detained at Medway said they experienced mistreatment there seven years ago and felt abandoned by the criminal justice and social care system. "It's the worst place for a vulnerable child. There's no support there for you," said Roni Moss, who served two sentences at Medway and says she began self-harming after repeated restraints. "It's not that we are bad and we wanted to be bad. It's actually that we need help." "A lot of the children there have been through some awful things," said Lela Xhemajli. "So to go in there and not get support . . . you lose a lot of faith in the system. "It should be run by people who know how to deal with children." Ms. Kassem said private companies were incapable of delivering that kind of care for young offenders. "Private companies are not fit for this purpose -- this is about safeguarding vulnerable children. And when an organization is running for profit, there is an inherent difficulty with that." Defending its record, a spokesman for G4S told Sky News: "Our commitment to the wellbeing of young people in our care continues throughout the sale process, as demonstrated by the recent inspection of G4S-managed Oakhill secure training centre by Ofsted, which rated the centre as 'good'." MULTI MOBILE IMAGING: Violated NYLL, "Cullen" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Susan Cullen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Multi Mobile Imaging, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 701979/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.., County of Queens, February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs relating to Defendant's alleged violations of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL). Multi Mobile Imaging is a national mobile diagnostics company offering physicians a portable, integrated medical solution. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Scher, Esq. BLOCK O'TOOLE & MUPRHY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 5315 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 736 5300 NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit over the merger transaction with C&J Energy Services, Inc., Nabors said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. "On March 24, 2015, we completed the merger (the "Merger") of our Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("C&J Energy")," the Company said. "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded. "On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). "On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending. Nabors owns and operates the world's largest land-based drilling rig fleet and is a leading provider of offshore platform workover and drilling rigs in the United States and numerous international markets. NANTKWEST INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sudunagunta" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Sudunagunta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong, Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson, and Richard Gomberg, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01947 (C.D. Cal, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: NantKwest's financial statements contained errors related to stock-based awards to the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong; NantKwest's financial statements contained errors related to build-to-suit lease accounting related to one of the Company's research and development and good manufacturing practices facilities; the Company lacked effective internal financial controls; and as a result of the foregoing, NantKwest's public statements were materially false and misleading. NantKwest, a biotechnology company, develops immunotherapeutic agents for various clinical conditions. The Company also holds right to commercialize a range of genetically modified derivatives that kills cancer and virally infected cells. Formerly known as Conkwest, Inc., the Company was founded in 2002 and changed its name to NantKwest, Inc. in July 2015. NantKwest is headquartered in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jpafiti@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (800) 977 7401 Facsimile: (800) 536 0065 E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com NASDAQ, INC: Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.) filed February 5, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "Our motion to dismiss the complaint is currently pending with the court. We believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously," the Company said. NASDAQ, INC: Provides Update on Facebook IPO Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided update on In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.). The Company said, "We became a party to several legal and regulatory proceedings in 2012 and 2013 relating to the Facebook, Inc. IPO that occurred on May 18, 2012. . . . we were named as a defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.)." "On May 22, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, and on November 9, 2015, the trial court entered an order approving the settlement. "Facebook and other defendants in a separate class action alleging securities fraud intervened in the proceeding relating to the settlement for the purpose of clarifying its potential effect on their own case, and have appealed one aspect of the court's order. We and the class plaintiffs with whom we have settled had informed the trial court that either the approved settlement language or the alternative language being advocated by the Facebook defendants is acceptable to the settling parties." "In our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, we identified a demand for arbitration from a member organization seeking indemnification for alleged losses associated with the Facebook IPO. In April 2015, we reached an agreement to settle the claims asserted by the member organization by allowing it to file a claim under the accommodation plan that had been established for claims by other members. "We established a reserve of $31 million to cover the costs of these settlements. During the second half of 2015, we recorded an insurance recovery which offset the loss reserve," the Company said. Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. NASDAQ, INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Providence Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al. "We also are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high- frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. The district court heard oral argument on the motion on June 18, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and, in any event, that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously. Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. NASDAQ, INC: Oral Argument Held in 2nd Circuit Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit scheduled oral argument for March 3, 2016, in the case Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al. "We are named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the Company said. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. The district court heard oral argument on the motion on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and, in any event, do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit has scheduled oral argument for March 3, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously. Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Debtor Proves Loan to be Unconscionable ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case GLORIA JAMES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, C.A. No. 8931-VCL (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware favored plaintiff and declared the loan to be invalid. Gloria James is a resident of Wilmington, Delaware. From 2007 through 2014, James worked in the housekeeping department at the Hotel DuPont. As a part-time employee, her hours varied. On average, after taxes, James took home approximately $1,100 per month. Defendant National Financial, LLC (National) is a consumer finance company that operates under the trade name Loan Till Payday. In May 2013, James obtained a loan from National for $200, were James earned $11.83 per hour. National described the loan product as a Flex Pay Loan. In substance, it was a one-year, non- amortizing, unsecured cash advance. James thought she was getting a payday loan with a block rate of $30 on $100. As James understood it, she would pay $60 to borrow the $200, but, National was no longer making traditional payday loans. Effective January 1, 2013, the General Assembly amended Delaware's statutory framework for closed-end consumer credit to impose limits on payday loans. Despite shifting to longer-dated installment loans, National continued to frame its finance charges using a block rate. National adhered to the practice since it made a high cost loan product sound cheaper than it was. The terms of the loan called for James to make 26, bi-weekly, interest-only payments of $60, followed by a 27th payment comprising both interest of $60 and the original principal of $200. The total repayments added up to $1,820, representing a cost of credit of $1,620. James defaulted. After National rejected her request for a workout agreement, she filed an action seeking to rescind the loan. On September 20, 2013, after voluntarily dismissing her federal action, James filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated borrowers. Count I of the complaint sought a permanent injunction barring National from collecting on the loans made to James and other class members. Count II sought a declaration that the terms of National's loan documents were unconscionable. Count III alleged that National breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the loan agreements. Count IV alleged that National unjustly enriched itself at the expense of the class members. Count V alleged violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. C. Sections 2511-2527. James later dropped Counts IV and V. On October 10, 2013, National moved to compel arbitration. National also sought to dismiss the complaint under the creative theory that James could not state a claim for a class action. Vice Chancellor Laster denied the motion to dismiss, noting that James had opted out of arbitration and that National's arguments against class certification were premature. James moved for Rule 11 sanctions and the same was granted. On May 6, 2014, James filed an amended complaint that added a claim that National violated the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1501 et seq., by failing to accurately disclose APRs on its loan agreements. She proved at trial that the disputed loan was unconscionable, resulting in an order of rescission. She also proved that National violated the federal Truth in Lending Act. Vice Chancellor Laster held that the loan is invalid and entered judgment in favor of James in the amount of $3,237. Pre- and post- judgment interest on the amount will accrue at the legal rate, compounded quarterly, beginning on May 7, 2013. James is awarded her attorneys' fees and costs. Counsel shall submit a Rule 88 affidavit. If the parties can agree on an amount, they shall submit a form of final order and judgment that is agreed as to form. Otherwise they shall propose a schedule for a fee application. A copy of Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/k6xBmLfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff Gloria James, represented by, Richard H. Cross, Jr. -- rcross@crosslaw.com -- Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- at CROSS & SIMON, LLC; Alexander J. Pires, Jr. -- Diane E. Cooley -- at PIRES COOLEY Defendant National Financial, LLC, represented by: Edward T. Ciconte, Esq. Daniel C. Kerric, Esq. CICONTE, SCERBA & KERRICK, LLC 1300 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-658-7101 Facsimile: 302-658-4982 National Financial is also represented by Kenneth M. Dubrow, Esq., at The Chartwell Law Offices. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Settlement in "Good" Suit Wins Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case, BRADLEY GOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-4295 (E.D. Pa.) On September 9, 2013, Nationwide Credit, Inc. (Nationwide) sent plaintiff Edward K. Soucek a dunning letter on behalf of creditor GE Capital Retail Bank offering to settle his account for less than the amount owed. The letter included the following language: "GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt of $600 or more. Please consult your tax advisor concerning any tax questions." On December 10, 2013, Nationwide sent plaintiff Bradley Good a similar letter on behalf of creditor American Express. The letter included the following language: "American Express is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt of $600 or more. Please consult your tax advisor concerning any tax questions. Plaintiffs filed a complaint and claim that the language is false and misleading and constitute a collection ploy in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e in its entirety. The complaint proposed a class comprised of all persons with addresses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were sent one or more collection letters from defendant that included the challenged statement or a substantially identical statement. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which the court denied. Through discovery, plaintiffs learned that defendant sent collection letters containing the challenged statement on behalf of its clients GE Capital Bank and American Express from September 2012 to July 1, 2015. Defendant mailed such letters to approximately 15,225 Pennsylvania consumers in the one-year period preceding plaintiffs' filing of their Complaint. In May 2015, the parties informed the court that they had reached a class-wide settlement in principle. Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement and class certification, which the court granted after some amendments. Plaintiffs filed an uncontested motion for final approval of amended class settlement and for approval of attorneys' fees and costs. Judge Robreno granted the motion for final approval of the settlement and granted plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $125,000. Named plaintiffs shall receive $1,000 as an incentive award. A copy of Judge Robreno's memorandum dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/LCGyC7from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: 610-266-7863 Facsimile: 610-667-0552 - and - CARLO SABATINI, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM LLC 216 North Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: 570-341-9000 Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred W. Putnam, Jr. -- Alfred.Putnam@dbr.com -- Andrew P. Reeve -- Andrew.Reeve@dbr.com -- at Drinker Biddle & Reath Llp; Clay J. Pierce at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP NDO AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Juni" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Natividad Juni, an individual, individually and on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NDO America, Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIV537848 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wages and overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code. NDO America, Inc., is engaged in the business of transport, logistics and freight forwarding. The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Eric Lambdin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF G. ERIC LAMBDIN 980 9th Street, 16th Floor, #1728 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (530) 924-0221 Facsimile: (530) 924-0844 NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Settles Meningitis Class Suit for $10.5M ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Herald reports that the federal government and defendants have reached a settlement for the case of meningitis outbreak in 2012. The outbreak is known to have infected more hundreds of people. According to Fox 17 Online, a settlement has been agreed in the class-action lawsuit filed for Michigan Clinic over a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak. The outbreak infected more than 750 people in 20 states and killed 64 people. The deal that was reached on March 25 will cover the 311 patients of Michigan Pain Specialists. The survivors of the outbreak is set to share the $10.5 million settlement money. The patients of Genoa Township clinic were injected with tainted steroids for pain, as reported by CBS Detroit. However, the steroid solution was a mixture from Framingham, Massachusetts and then shipped to other states. Attorney of the clinic, Randy Hackney, told the press that the settlement was a fair offer. The patients are also under a $210 million settlement involving the Massachusetts center. The patients received injection with preservative-free methylprednisolone acetate prepared by the New England Compounding Center located in the Framingham. Detroit Free Press wrote that the contaminated steroid solution was generally used in treatments for people with back pain. Even Judge David Reader stated that he was injected with such steroid to relieve his back pain. However, he added that the treatment was done several years ago before the outbreak. Meanwhile, patients and survivors signed individual agreements to settlement terms with a pledge not to bring any further actions against the clinic. Though, it was not a requirement, it was the key to reaching the said amount. The two-year court proceedings saw the patients expressed their concerns on when they would receive their payment as many will face medical costs. These medical costs are being feared to exceed their insurance coverage while other said that they are concerned if the infections will affect their health in the future. NEW GENERATION DONUTS: Ex-Employees Fail to Win Conditional Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the District of Massachusetts denied plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the case PAMELA PIKE and SALLY ZISCHKE, individually and as representatives of a proposed collective action, Plaintiffs, v. NEW GENERATION DONUTS, LLC, CADETE ENTERPRISES, INC., and JOHN CADETE, individually and in his capacity as manager, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-12226-FDS (D. Mass.) Sally Zischke worked as a Dunkin' Donuts store manager in Massachusetts from November 2009 to June 2011 while Pamela Pike worked in the same position at a different Dunkin' Donuts store from March 2011 to May 2011. Both Dunkin' Donuts stores were franchises owned and operated by two corporate entities, the New Generation Donuts, LLC and Cadete Enterprises, Inc. whose common president is John Cadete. Pursuant to agreements that they signed with Cadete Enterprises, Pike and Zischke were expected to work no less than a six day, 48 hour work week. However, plaintiffs contend that they frequently worked seven days and more than 60 hours per week because they were forced to cover the shifts of absent hourly employees. On October 15, 2012, Pike and Zischke filed suit in state court alleging that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a), by misclassifying them as exempt employees and refusing to pay them overtime. The complaint also alleged state-law claims for intentionally failing to pay plaintiffs their earned hourly wages as required by the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148, and intentionally failing to pay them overtime wages as required by the Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Section 1A. Plaintiffs did not, however, file notices of consent to pursue a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Defendants removed the case to the present court and on January 16, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending the outcome of a related action, Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises, Inc., No. 11-cv-10244-FDS, which was scheduled for a summary judgment hearing in April 2013. In January 2016, the stay was lifted when the First Circuit issued its opinion in Marzuq. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed notices of consent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 256(b) and moved to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Defendants contend that the motion should be denied because, among other reasons, the two-year limitations period for non-willful FLSA violations expired before plaintiffs commenced their collective action by filing notices of consent. Plaintiffs contend that the court should equitably toll the limitations period because the case was stayed. Judge Saylor denied plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. A copy of Judge Saylor's memorandum and order dated February 20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/fQZwdLfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Benjamin Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C Defendants, represented by Nicholas B Carter -- ncarter@toddweld.com -- Maria T. Davis -- mdavis@toddweld.com -- at Todd & Weld LLP NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Retirees' COLA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments March 14 over whether a 1997 pension law guarantees yearly cost-of-living adjustments to pensions received by retired state and local public-sector workers. The administration of Republican Gov. Chris Christie asked the justices to overturn an Appellate Division ruling in Berg v. Christie that said the 1997 statute created non-forfeitable COLAs. Conversely, the lead plaintiffs, 26 retired attorneys who previously worked for state or local governments, urged the court to affirm the appeals court's ruling, saying the Legislature purposefully used the statute to guarantee pension benefits and COLAs. Public-sector unions filed a separate lawsuit and the Supreme Court has consolidated the cases. The court will have to determine if the COLA portion of Gov. Christie's landmark 2011 pension reform statute known as Chapter 78 -- which guaranteed that the state would fully fund financially troubled pension plans in exchange for an increase in contributions from public-sector workers and a COLA freeze -- is enforceable. The court, in a divided ruling last year in Burgos v. Christie, sided against public-sector unions and with Christie. Gov. Christie had initially championed Chapter 78 but later argued that its funding mandate was unconstitutional after diverting $2.5 billion from the scheduled pension fund payments to balance the state's budget. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the unions' appeal of the 5-2 Burgos ruling, which was written by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. The pension funds currently have an unfunded liability of about $89 billion, and Moody's Investors Services has told the state that if the court rules in favor of the Berg plaintiffs, it could expand the unfunded liability by about $13 billion. Assistant Attorney General Jean Reilly said that, like in Burgos, future legislatures cannot be bound by statutes created by earlier legislatures that contractually require them to make certain appropriations. "The sovereign power to set policy cannot be surrendered," Ms. Reilly said. Only the voters, through constitutional amendments, can require future legislatures to make appropriations, she argued. "The stakes are so high," Ms. Reilly said. A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor, she said, would lead to "drastic limitations on the power of the state." Appellate Division Judge Mary Cuff, temporarily assigned, asked whether the state could ever move to eliminate COLAs altogether. Reilly said that since that wasn't the issue here, that question hasn't been researched. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Suit Over Infiniti SUVs ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Nissan's claims about its vehicles' high quality should not have caused it to lose a class action lawsuit related to dashboard bubbling, a Missouri appeals court ruled. Nissan began to receive complaints about the dashboard of its Infiniti FX sport utility vehicle in 2005. The company offered an extended warranty in 2010. Before Nissan made this offer, Robert Hurst filed a class-action lawsuit for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The trial court certified a class of drivers who owned an Infiniti FX35 or FX45 from the model years 2003 through 2008. At trial, class member Susan Oelke said she had expected the Infiniti to be a "higher quality" vehicle after learning about it from commercials and the marketing materials at the Nissan dealership. Other class members made similar statements that they thought the Infiniti FX would be an "upscale," "luxury" vehicle. Nathan Lyst, senior manager of Infiniti marketing communications, testified that Nissan was trying to market the FX as a "very refined" vehicle featuring "premium automotive machinery." Hurst prevailed in the lawsuit, and the court ordered Nissan to pay $2,000 to each of the 326 members of the class. The plaintiffs were also awarded a total of $1.8 million in attorney's fees. Nissan appealed, arguing that its statements about the cars' quality were inactionable puffery. The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the lower court's ruling in a decision written by Judge James E. Welsh. He explained that advertisers are allowed some latitude for the "puffing of wares" without fear of having to defend their claims in court. "Thus, a pasta maker may declare that it is 'America's Favorite Pasta' and Papa John's may proclaim 'Better Ingredients, Better Pizza' without incurring liability," Welsh wrote. He added, "Indeed, to hold Nissan liable in this case under the MMPA would result in Nissan being liable to consumers because the consumers deemed their expectations unmet and would essentially obviate Nissan's limited warranty because basically everything would be guaranteed forever." Also, Welsh noted, the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to attorney fees because they are not the prevailing party. The case captioned, ROBERT HURST, Respondent, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Appellant., WD78665 (Mo. Ct. App.). NQ MOBILE: May 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Notice of class action lawsuit filing on March 3, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Finocchiaro, et al. v. NQ Mobile, Omar Sharif Khan, Matthew Mathison, Civil Action No.:1:15-cv-06385-NRB, on behalf of all purchasers of NQ Mobile, Inc. ("NQ" or "the Company") from January 1, 2014 through May 15, 2015, inclusive "the Class Period"). The Complaint alleges failure to disclose adverse facts and false and misleading disclosures during the Class Period, specifically that Defendants violated US securities laws by misrepresenting the financial condition of NQ and making material omissions by failing to disclose private acquisitions in 2014, drastically diluting share value, when a public buyout offer from Bison Capital, Inc. was made, in months leading up to the six months delayed 2013 20F filing on October 27, 2014, in addition to subsequent misleading statements and disclosures, all made with scienter and proximately caused economic loss to investors, and Defendants actions and omissions resulted in artificially inflated stock prices during the Class Period, when there was a presumption of reliance on the market. If you purchased NQ stock during the Class Period, then you have until May 21, 2016, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, if you choose to do so. NU SKIN: Reached Settlement of Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, that on February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit captioned In re Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:14- cv-00033-JNP-BCW. The litigation was brought against the Company and certain of the Company's officers (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of a class consisting of persons or entities that publicly traded the Company's common stock during the period from May 4, 2011 through January 17, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby. The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a settlement payment by or on behalf of the Company of $47 million. The settlement payment is expected to be entirely funded by the Company's insurers, and as a result, the Company does not expect to incur a net charge to its income statement in respect thereof. The Agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the Defendants, and in connection with the settlement, the parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases. The settlement remains subject to court approval and may be cancelled by the Defendants at their election in certain limited circumstances. Final court approval of the settlement is expected to occur in mid-2016 but could be delayed by circumstances beyond the Company's control. Upon final approval of the settlement by the court, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice. OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Data, "Mares" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ Frank Mares and Joann Mares, individuals, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited company, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC614358 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016), alleges that Defendants acquired consumers' credit reports despite the absence of any credit or business relationship that would justify invasion of privacy. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is a large mortgage servicer and services tens or hundreds of thousands of mortgages in California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com - and - Ethan Preson, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (972) 564-8340 Facsimile: (866) 509-1197 E-mail: ep@eplaw.us OHIO: Two Bills Against "Tampon Tax" Pending Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Ludlow, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that Ohio's "tampon tax" is under attack, both legally and legislatively, as discriminatory against women. A lawsuit filed in the Ohio Court of Claims this month seeks class-action status, an end to the collection of sales tax on feminine hygiene products and the refund of at least $66 million to female consumers. Two bills pending in the House of Representatives also would end the taxation of tampons and pads, which Rep. Greta Johnson, D-Akron, calls "a medical necessity -- not a luxury item." The lawsuit filed on behalf of four Cleveland-area women claims the sales tax on the hygiene products violates the equal protection clause of both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. "A tax on tampons and pads is a tax on women," the complaint reads. Ohio exempts prescription drugs, durable medical equipment and similar items from the sales tax. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies tampons and pads as "medical devices," but 40 states continue to tax them. Based on 3 million women spending $70 each a year on hygiene products, the lawsuit estimates the state's 5.4 percent share of the sales tax brings in about $11 million a year and seeks the return of taxes collected during at least the past six years. Under that scenario, the state sales tax amounts to less than $4 a woman. Local sales taxes can tack on up to 3.35 percent more. "It really is unequal protection and discriminatory," said Sandra Kelly, a Cleveland lawyer involved in the lawsuit. "I can't imagine something else that is medically necessary for women that is taxed." The Ohio Department of Taxation, the defendant in the lawsuit, does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesman said. Rep. Johnson, the mother of two daughters, is sponsor of one of the bills to abolish the tampon tax. "It is a disparate tax because it doesn't happen to men," she said. "We have to do things to address the cost of being a woman, particularly in the state of Ohio." The second bill also would exempt non-prescription drugs and disposable baby diapers from the sales tax. President Barack Obama has objected to the tampon tax this year, saying, "I have to tell you, I have no idea why states would tax these as luxury items. I suspect it's because men were making the laws when those taxes were passed." Republican Gov. John Kasich, a father of twin girls who is running for Obama's job, also declined to comment because of the pending lawsuit, a spokesman said. PATRIOT SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Arrieta" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Emilio Arrieta, and other similarly situated individuals v. Patriot Solar Group LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, individually, Case No. CACE16005079 (Fla. Cir., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Patriot Solar Group LLC, operates as a racking manufacturing company in the solar industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Series Windows ------------------------------------------------------------ SYLVIA R. COOKS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pella Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00232-JTT-KK (W.D. La., February 19, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's intentional concealment or failure to disclose material facts on the poor quality and short life of the Architect Series Windows. Pella designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, warrants, and sell its Pella Architect series Windows to the general public. The Defendant is an Iowa Corporation conducting business in Louisiana and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. Irma L. Netting, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, L.L.C. P.O. BOX 904 Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: (985) 783 6789 Facsimile: (985) 783 1333 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com irma@lemmonlawfirm.com PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Settles Mask Kickback Claims for $34.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a company that makes breathing masks for people with sleep apnea has agreed to pay $34.8 million to settle claims it paid kickbacks to suppliers that sold its products. Philips Respironics Inc. of Murrysville provided free customer support through its medSage call center to suppliers whose customers used Respironics masks. Suppliers that sold masks made by competitors had to pay for the call center services, which made the suppliers more likely to use Respironics masks, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which announced the settlement on March 23. Kickbacks "in any form to induce patient referrals threatens public confidence in the health care system," said Benjamin Mizer, who handled the litigation for the Justice Department. The masks can be covered by Medicaid or Medicare programs, and it's against the law to induce medical suppliers to use a particular company's product for any government-covered medical service, the Justice Department said. Dr. Gibran Ameer, a South Carolina pharmacist who has worked for various medical supply companies, filed a whistleblower lawsuit in federal court two years ago and will receive nearly $5.4 million under the settlement. The federal government will receive more than $28.7 million. Philips Respironics will also pay about $660,000 to cover claims by state Medicaid programs. The Justice Department, 29 states and the District of Columbia joined the lawsuit. Alicia Cafardi, a spokeswoman for Philips Respironics, said the company had a "good-faith belief" that it wasn't doing anything wrong when it "bundled" the call center service in the price of its sleep apnea masks. The government called that fictitious, saying suppliers paid nothing extra for their Respironics masks but were charged 99 cents a month for each patient with a non-Respironics mask who used the call center service. The call center contacted patients with sleep apnea who used any breathing machine to remind them to regularly replace masks, tubes and filters that are part of their devices. That means a supplier saved $11.88 per year for each patient that used a Respironics mask. A supplier that had 10,000 patient customers would save $118,800 annually if they sold Respironics masks instead of a competitor's, the government said in the lawsuit. Dr. Ameer was an executive for one such medical supplier when Philips Respironics tried to sell that arrangement to his company, according to his attorney, Andrew Melling. "Dr. Ameer recognized that what was being offered was kickbacks," Melling said. Ms. Cafardi said Philips Respironics has since "made a business decision" to restructure the call center pricing. Medical supply companies who use the medSage call center service now pay a flat monthly price for each patient, regardless of whether the patient uses a Respironics mask, Ms. Cafardi said. PIXAR: Ordered to Hand Over Ex-GC Emails in "No-Poach" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge has ordered Pixar to hand over communications involving its former general counsel for in-camera review in a case that accuses the Disney-owned animation studio of masterminding a web of anti- competitive recruiting pacts. Siding with plaintiffs lawyers, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal said the crime-fraud exception may apply to the communications of Lois Scali, a former Irell & Manella partner who served as Pixar's general counsel from 2003 to 2007. The documents had been withheld by Pixar citing attorney-client privilege, but plaintiffs lawyers argued that they were made in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition for labor and suppress wages. "The evidence showing Scali's involvement in Pixar's alleged conspiracy suggests that plaintiffs are reasonable and in good faith in believing that Pixar was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought Scali's advice to further that scheme," Judge Grewal wrote in an order issued on March 23. Pixar, represented by Covington & Burling and Keker & Van Nest, has until April 1 to hand over the documents. Judge Grewal pointed to several email chains submitted into evidence that included Ms. Scali. In one 2005 email, Ms. Scali alerted recipients that she was planning to hire a lawyer into her department from Lucasfilm Ltd. "Naturally, we will observe our usual protocol of talking to appropriate folks at Lucas before officially moving forward, but we are hopeful that Lucas is agreeable," Ms. Scali wrote. Ms. Scali, who supervised Pixar's top human resources executive, has been inactive with the State Bar of California since 2009. Covington partner Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- and Keker partner John Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- did not return calls seeking comment. Plaintiffs in In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, 14- 4062, are visual-effects artists who claim they were harmed by illegal "no-poach" agreements that involved Pixar and other animation companies. Judge Grewal's order follows a discovery motion that was filed in February by co-lead plaintiffs attorneys at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Susman Godfrey. Hagens Berman partner Steve Berman and Cohen Milstein partner Daniel Small did not return calls seeking comment. In the motion, the lawyers argued that Ms. Scali, a member of Pixar's top executive team, was not only privy to the no-hire pacts, but that she "personally implemented the conspiracy." They used emails to support their contention that Ms. Scali was directly involved in the hiring policy. In one email cited by plaintiffs lawyers, a Pixar producer warned Ms. Scali and other executives about employees that almost left the company for jobs with Sony Corp. The producer referenced a plan to have someone "call the Sony women and remind them of our gentleman's agreement not to raid each other and to let us know when we are talking with key employees." The text of another 2005 email, sent to Ms. Scali by Pixar's then- CEO Steve Jobs, was fully redacted aside from the subject line, "Fwd: Disney trying to hire Pixar employees." That is evidence, the plaintiffs team wrote, that Ms. Scali was deeply involved in the alleged conspiracy and that attorney-client privilege should be pierced. "The justice system has a strong incentive to ferret out crime- fraud issues involving in-house counsel to ensure the fox is not guarding the henhouse," their brief states. As the dispute intensified, Pixar's lawyers vigorously opposed even in-camera review, accusing their opponents of seeing to "cripple" the attorney-client privilege. In a series of emails between the sides, one Covington lawyer insisted that there had been no crime to trigger the crime-fraud exception, and that asking a judge to review documents that could establish such a crime would encroach on the central merits of the case. PRA GROUP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Litigation ------------------------------------------------ A settlement has been reached in litigation alleging violation sof the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle under which the parties have agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. The Company has fully accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the amounts charged to earnings through Outside fees and services expense, related to the accrual for this matter were $8.0 million, $0 and $1.2 million, respectively. The 2015 amount is net of expected insurance proceeds. Headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia and incorporated in Delaware, PRA Group is a leading company in the acquisition and collection of nonperforming loans in the Americas and Europe. PRIMERO AUTO: "Carvajal" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis M. Carvajal, and other similarly situated employees by and through the undersigned counsel, Plaintiff, v. Primero Auto Parts, Inc. and Emilio Bruscantini, individually, and Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20619-PAS (S.D. Fla. Miami Div., February 20, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Primero Auto Parts is a small organization in the auto and home supply stores industry located in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446 1500 Facsimile: (305) 446 1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Violated Labor Code, "Garcia" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- David Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Priority Workforce, Inc., a California corporation, Bonert's Incorporated, a California corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and cost, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, and Labor Code, and the California Code of Regulations. Since 1989, PriorityWorkforce has provided professional staffing solutions throughout Southern California, Northern California, Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James Alexander De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com - and - Mehrdad Bokhou, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328 Telephone: (310) 438 5555 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in "Soffer" --------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Barbara J. Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Second District and remanded the matter for further proceedings in the case captioned, LUCILLE RUTH SOFFER, etc., Petitioner, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Respondent, Case No. SC13-139 (Fla.). Maurice Soffer died in May of 1992 from lung cancer caused by smoking. After the Court issued its decision in Engle, 945 So. 2d at 1254, requiring class members to file their own individual actions within a year, Soffer's widow, Lucille Soffer, brought a wrongful death action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company pursuant to that decision. Her complaint asserted four causes of action, all of which had been pled in the Engle class litigation: negligence, strict liability, fraud by concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud. Approximately a year prior to trial, Soffer filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a demand for punitive damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) and section 768.72, Florida Statutes. Soffer's request for the amendment was not limited to any one count. R.J. Reynolds objected based on its position that the allegations in support of the motion to amend were "conclusory assertions that defendants' conduct was grossly negligent or willful and wanton" and without "factual support." The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs for a total amount of $2,000,000. Soffer appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it was prohibited from awarding punitive damages on the counts for negligence and strict liability. The First District affirmed the trial court on the issue, noting that Soffer chose to bring her individual action pursuant to Engle based on the benefits that membership in the Engle class confers. Judge Lewis dissented from the First District's holding in Soffer, reasoning that res judicata did not bar a plaintiff from seeking punitive damages on all properly pled counts because this Court's Engle decision never required Engle progeny plaintiffs to file identical claims. Judge Lewis asserted that in his view, based on the error, Soffer should be entitled to a new trial, limited solely to the issue of punitive damages. On appeal, R.J. Reynolds asks the state Supreme Court whether Engle progeny plaintiffs may pursue an award of punitive damages under theories of negligence or strict liability, or whether they are limited to seeking punitive damages only as to the intentional tort counts of fraudulent concealment and conspiracy that were permitted in the original Engle class action. In her Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/fSLxwcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pariente held that the trial court erred by preventing the jury from considering Soffer's request for punitive damages on all four counts. The Engle trial court's denial of the motion to amend the class action complaint to include a demand for punitive damages on the counts for negligence and strict liability was not based on the merits of the request but instead rested on the procedural posture at the time. Lucille Ruth Soffer is represented by James William Gustafson, Jr. Esq. -- JWG@searcylaw.com -- SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. Soffer is also represented by: John Stewart Mills, Esq. Courtney Rebecca Brewer, Esq. THE MILLS FIRM, P.A. 325 North Calhoun St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850)765-0897 - and - Rodney Warren Smith, Esq. Mark Alexander Avera, Esq. Dawn Marie Vallejos-Nichols, Esq. AVERA & SMITH, LLP 2814 SW 13th St. Gainesville, FL 32608 Tel: (352)372-9999 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is represented by Gregory George Katsas, Esq. - ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, & Robert Bruce Parrish, Esq. -- bparrish@mppkj.com -- & Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Esq. -- cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT & JONES RESTORATION HARDWARE: Justice Dismisses Class Member's Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Alex C. McDonald of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One dismissed the appeal in the case MIKE HERNANDEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, FRANCESCA MULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant; v. RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. D067091 (Cal. Ct. App.) Michael Hernandez filed an action in 2008 alleging defendant Restoration Hardwarre, Inc. (RHI) violated Civil Code section 1747.08 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from consumers who used a credit card in purchase transactions in RHI's California retail stores. After years of litigation, the court ultimately certified the case as a class action, appointed Michael Hernandez and Amanda Georgino as class representatives, and appointed Patterson Law Group and Stonebarger Law as counsel for the class. In a post-trial proceedings, class representatives requested the court order an award of attorney fees of $9,103,087.50, a 25% of the total maximum fund of $36,412,350 created by the judgment to be payable to class counsel from the fund. RHI agreed it would not contest that request. Francesca Muller, a class member requested the court order notice of the attorney fee motion be sent to all class members. The court denied Muller's request, granted the attorney fee motion, and entered judgment in the action. Muller then filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. Muller asserts the court erred when it declined to order that notice be given to all class members of the hearing on the attorney fee award, and that the award was calculated in violation of applicable standards and procedures. Muller also claims the court's award was an abuse of its discretion. Class representative Hernandez asserts Muller does not have standing to appeal the judgment and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed. Hernandez alternatively argues (1) no notice to the class of the attorney fee hearing was mandated and (2) the amount awarded as fees, as well as the procedure employed by the trial court for determining the amount of the attorney fees award, was proper. Justice McDonald dismissed Muller's appeal. A copy of Justice McDonald's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/JfVSENfrom Leagle.com. For Plaintiff and Appellant: Lawrence W. Schonbrun, Esq. Law Office of Lawrence W. Schonbrun 86 Eucalyptus Rd Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: 510-547-8070 For Plaintiffs and Respondents, James R. Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Allison H. Goddard -- ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- at Patterson Law Group; Gene J. Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- at Stonebarger Law No appearance for Defendant and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Richard D. Huffman and Justices Alex C. McDonald and Gilbert Nares. RW INSTALLATION: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Silvio Jesus Saavedra, Silvio Saavedra, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RW Installation Inc., RW Glazing Inc., Robert Wszendybyl, And Marlena Stettner, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20620-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). RW Installations is engaged in the business of receiving, storing, delivery and installation of goods. The Company is located in Davie, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. Attorney For Plaintiff 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SABAH INTERNATIONAL: "Correa" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel D. Correa and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sabah International Incorporated, Does 1-100 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, penalties, attorney fees and costs, and such other penalties and legal and equitable remedies under the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, the Labor Code, and Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Sabah International is a California corporation which is engaged in the business of installing and servicing fire alarms, sprinkler systems and other safety related systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq. VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER LLP 6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 592 3505 Facsimile: (323) 592 3506 SANTA FE NATURAL: "Gudmundson" Suit Seeks Damages Under UDTPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Desire Gudmundson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. and Reynolds American Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00020 (Dist. V.I., Div. of St. Thomas & St. John, February 20, 2016), seeks to recover punitive damages due to alleged intentional misleading advertisements to increase profits at the expense of the public and reckless conduct which constitutes malice and fraud and evinces a conscious or reckless indifference to the rights, health, well-being and safety of others, pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTPA). The Defendants' product labeling and advertising describes their cigarettes as "Natural", "Additive Free", "100% Additive Free", "Organic", and an "unadulterated tobacco product". These terms are intended to suggest a healthier and safer cigarette, allowing Defendants to charge a price premium for the cigarettes. A reasonable consumer, faced with the choice between Defendants' cigarettes and those with labels that do not bear these deceptive statements, would conclude that American Spirit cigarettes are substantially healthier and cause less harm than other cigarettes. Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Natural American Spirit cigarettes (American Spirits). The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russell B. Pate, Esq. THE PATE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 890 St. Thomas, USVI 00804 Telephone: (340) 777 7283 E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com SEMPRA ENERGY: 83 Suits Filed v. SoCalGas Over Leak --------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of February 24, 2016, 83 lawsuits have been filed against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas, certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas. In October 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility, which has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972, is situated in the Santa Susana Mountains. SS25 is more than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells at the storage facility. Stopping the Leak and Mitigation Efforts SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading experts to stop the leak, including planning and obtaining all necessary approvals for drilling relief wells. After discovering the leak, SoCalGas made seven unsuccessful attempts to plug SS25 by pumping fluids down the well shaft. In early December 2015, SoCalGas began drilling a relief well designed to stop the leak by plugging the well at its base. On February 11, 2016, SoCalGas began pumping heavy fluids through the relief well into SS25 near the base of the well, which controlled the flow of natural gas through the well and stopped the leak. In order to permanently seal the well and consistent with directives from the DOGGR and CPUC, SoCalGas then injected cement into SS25 at its base and on February 18, 2016, the DOGGR confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. Pursuant to a stipulation and order and in response to claims made pursuant to lawsuits, SoCalGas has been providing temporary relocation support to residents in the nearby community who request it. In addition, SoCalGas has been providing air filtration and purification systems to those residents in the nearby community requesting them. As a result of receiving the confirmation from DOGGR that the SS25 well was permanently sealed, SoCalGas started winding down its temporary relocation support. Subject to certain exceptions, the period for temporary relocation support to residents who temporarily relocated to short-term housing, such as hotels, concluded on February 25, 2016. This deadline has been challenged and is subject to a recent court order extending such period for an additional 22 days for certain residents. SoCalGas has appealed this order extending the support period. Additionally, residents who have been placed in rental housing will have through the agreed term of their leases to return home. In addition, SoCalGas also intends to mitigate the GHG emissions from the actual natural gas released. The total costs incurred to remediate and stop the leak and to mitigate environmental and local community impacts will be significant, and to the extent not covered by insurance, or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation Various governmental agencies, including the DOGGR, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, SCAQMD, CARB, CPUC, EPA, Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, and California Attorney General's Office, are investigating this incident. SoCalGas has been working in close cooperation with these agencies. As of February 24, 2016, 83 lawsuits have been filed against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas, certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, strict liability, property damage, fraud, nuisance, trespass, and breach of fiduciary duties, among other things, and additional litigation may be filed against us in the future related to this incident. Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Los Angeles City Attorney and Los Angeles County Counsel have also filed a complaint on behalf of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas for public nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The California Attorney General, acting in her independent capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California and the CARB, joined this lawsuit. The complaint, as amended to include the California Attorney General, adds allegations of violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public, and 25510, requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties. The SCAQMD also filed a complaint against SoCalGas seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for each day the violations occurred. SHAKE SHACK: Faces "Vidal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Vidal, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 651418/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC -- https://www.shakeshack.com/ -- is a roadside burger stand which serves burgers, hot dogs, frozen custard, shakes, beer, wine and more. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 SHANK CONCRETE: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick McIntyre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Shank Concrete, LLC c/o Its Statutory Agent Jade Shank, Jade Shank, and April Shank, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (N.D. Ohio, February 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Based Napoleon, Ohio, Shank Concrete is engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles S. Herman, Esq. CHARLES HERMAN LAW 411 N. Michigan, Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 244 7500 Facsimile: (419) 244 7805 E-mail: charles@charleshermanlaw.com SKECHERS USA: Says Global Accord in Final Stages of Documentation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the global settlement program in the personal injury lawsuits involving its shape-ups products are in the final stages of being documented. On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by the company, and that the Company failed to provide adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. "In total, we are named as a defendant in 1,141 currently pending cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud," the Company said. "Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. "Since 2011, a total of 1,235 personal injury cases have been filed in or transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional individuals have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has resolved 481 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings, comprised of 90 that were filed as formal actions and 391 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. "Skechers has also settled 1,332 claims in principle -- 1,101 filed cases and 231 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets -- either directly or pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the claimants' attorneys (described in greater detail below). Further, 42 cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned. Between the consummated settlements and cases subject to the settlement program, all but two personal injury cases pending in the MDL have been or are expected to soon be resolved. On August 6, 2015, the Court entered an order staying all deadlines, including trial, pending further order of the Court. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group also have been named as defendants in a total of 72 personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the State of California that were brought on behalf of 920 individual plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of those cases, 68 were originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases"). "On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a petition by our company to coordinate all personal injury actions filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases (collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014, three cases that had been pending in other counties were transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. "On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. Thirty-five actions brought on behalf of a total of 476 plaintiffs, have been settled and dismissed. We have also settled in principle an additional 31 actions brought on behalf of 405 plaintiffs pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs' attorneys. "One single-plaintiff lawsuit and the claims of 28 additional plaintiffs in multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been dismissed entirely, either voluntarily or on motion by us. The claims of 21 additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on motions by us. Thus, taking into account both consummated settlements and cases subject to the settlement program, only five lawsuits on behalf of a total of ten plaintiffs are expected to remain in the LASC Coordinated Cases. Discovery is continuing in those five remaining cases. No trial dates have been set. "In other state courts, a total of 12 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed. "One of the remaining actions that includes the claims of 65 plaintiffs has been settled in principle pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs' attorneys (described in greater detail below). The last remaining action in a state court other than California was recently filed in Missouri on January 4, 2016 on behalf of a single plaintiff. We have not yet been served in that action. With respect to the global settlement programs, the personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC Coordinated Cases and in other state courts were largely solicited and handled by the same plaintiffs law firms. Accordingly, mediations to discuss potential resolution of the various lawsuits brought by these firms were held on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015. At the conclusion of those mediations, the parties reached an agreement in principle on a global settlement program that is expected to resolve all or substantially all of the claims by persons represented by those firms. The global settlement program involves complex monetary and non-monetary terms that are in the final stages of being documented. "If the group settlements are not finalized and the litigation proceeds, it is too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses. "The settlements have been reached for business purposes in order to end the distraction of litigation, and we continue to believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend any remaining cases vigorously. In addition, even if the global settlement is finalized, it is too early to predict whether there will be future personal injury cases filed which are not covered by the settlement, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be available and/or adequate to cover any losses. The Company designs and markets Skechers-branded lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand name. SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Fortin" Suit Over Wrongful Termination ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fortin v. SolarCity Corporation; Ryan Coogin and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001051-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment for reason of physical limitations due to surgery from hernia and cyst growth. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. SolarCity Corporation offers solar power energy services. It provides design, financing, installation, monitoring, and energy efficiency services. It serves homeowners, businesses, schools, non-profits, and government organizations in the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: "Harrison" Suit Moved to E.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------- Robin Harrison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Southeastern Grocers, LLC, and Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Case No. 6:15-CV-676, was transferred from US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, to the US District Court for Eastern District for North Carolina. The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 7:16-mc-00004-RN to the proceeding. Southeastern Grocers operates supermarkets in the Southeastern United States. The company's stores provide non-perishable products, including grocery, dairy, frozen food, general merchandise, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and fuel products; perishable products comprising fresh and packaged meat, seafood, deli, bakery, produce, and floral products; pharmacy products; and other products. As of July 10, 2013, it operated 685 stores serving various metropolitan areas in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee under the Winn-Dixie, BI-LO, Super BI-LO, and BI-LO at the Beach supermarket banners. SOUTHERN COMPANY: Court Approved Stipulated Order of Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has approved a stipulated order of dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to the AGL Resources merger litigation. AGL Resources and each member of the AGL Resources board of directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in September and October 2015. These actions were filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and other AGL Resources shareholders challenging the Merger and seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, and, in certain circumstances, damages. Southern Company and Merger Sub were also named as defendants in two of these lawsuits. On October 23, 2015, the court consolidated the four lawsuits into a single action. On January 4, 2016, the parties filed a proposed stipulated order of dismissal, asking the court to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, which the court approved on January 5, 2016. Proposed Merger with AGL Resources On August 23, 2015, Southern Company entered into the Merger Agreement to acquire AGL Resources. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, subject to the satisfaction or waiver (if permissible under applicable law) of specified conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into AGL Resources. AGL Resources will survive the Merger and become a wholly-owned, direct subsidiary of Southern Company. Upon the consummation of the Merger, each share of common stock of AGL Resources issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger (Effective Time), other than shares owned by AGL Resources as treasury stock, shares owned by a subsidiary of AGL Resources, and any shares owned by shareholders who have properly exercised and perfected dissenters' rights, will be converted into the right to receive $66 in cash, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes (Merger Consideration). Other equity-based securities of AGL Resources will be cancelled for cash consideration or converted into new awards from Southern Company as described in the Merger Agreement. In accordance with GAAP, the Merger will be accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting whereby the assets acquired and liabilities assumed are recognized at fair value as of the acquisition date. The excess of the purchase price over the fair values of AGL Resources' assets and liabilities will be recorded as goodwill. Southern Company expects total cash of $8.2 billion to be required to fund the purchase price of approximately $8.0 billion to acquire AGL Resources common stock, options to purchase shares of AGL Resources common stock, and restricted stock units payable in shares of AGL Resources common stock and to fund acquisition-related expenses and financing costs of approximately $200 million. Southern Company will also assume AGL Resources' outstanding indebtedness. The Merger was approved by AGL Resources' shareholders on November 19, 2015, and the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 expired on December 4, 2015. Consummation of the Merger remains subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain closing conditions, including, among others, (i) the approval of the California Public Utilities Commission, Georgia PSC, Illinois Commerce Commission, Maryland PSC, and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, and other approvals required under applicable state laws, and the approval of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the transfer of control over the FCC licenses of certain subsidiaries of AGL Resources, (ii) the absence of a judgment, order, decision, injunction, ruling, or other finding or agency requirement of a governmental entity prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, and (iii) other customary closing conditions, including (a) subject to certain materiality qualifiers, the accuracy of each party's representations and warranties and (b) each party's performance in all material respects of its obligations under the Merger Agreement. Southern Company completed the required state regulatory applications in the fourth quarter 2015 and the required FCC filings in February 2016. On February 24, 2016, a stipulation and settlement agreement between Southern Company, AGL Resources, the Maryland PSC Staff, and the Maryland Office of People's Counsel was filed with the Maryland PSC. The proposed settlement remains subject to the approval of the Maryland PSC. Additionally, Southern Company received the approval of the Virginia State Corporation Commission in February 2016. Subject to certain limitations, either party may terminate the Merger Agreement if the Merger is not consummated by August 23, 2016, which date may be extended by either party to February 23, 2017 if, on August 23, 2016, all conditions to closing other than those relating to (i) regulatory approvals and (ii) the absence of legal restraints preventing consummation of the Merger (to the extent relating to regulatory approvals) have been satisfied. Upon termination of the Merger Agreement under certain specified circumstances, AGL Resources will be required to pay Southern Company a termination fee of $201 million or reimburse Southern Company's expenses up to $5 million (which reimbursement shall reduce on a dollar-for-dollar basis any termination fee subsequently payable by AGL Resources). Southern Company currently expects to complete the transaction in the second half of 2016. During 2015, the Company incurred external transaction costs for financing, legal, and consulting services associated with the proposed Merger of approximately $41 million. STANCORP FINANCIAL: 4 Suits Consolidated in Multnomah Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Stancorp Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Multnomah County Circuit Court has consolidated four lawsuits for purposes of hearing and trial. "Since entering into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated July 23, 2015 with Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company ("Meiji Yasuda") and MYL Investment (Delaware) Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Meiji Yasuda ("Merger Sub"), we, members of our Board of Directors (the "Board") and the Meiji Yasuda parties have been named as defendants in four putative class action lawsuits brought by our purported shareholders on behalf of our shareholders challenging the merger," the Company said. "The four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah under the following captions: Shiva Stein, et al. v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV20372, filed July 31, 2015, Bud and Sue Frashier Family Trust, et al. v. J. Greg Ness, et al., Case No. 15CV20832, filed August 7, 2015, Grant Causton, et al. v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV22197, filed August 20, 2015, and Janet Shock v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV23748 (later amended to substitute Hillery Scott as plaintiff), filed September 8, 2015. On January 14, 2016, the Multnomah County Circuit Court granted an order of consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel, consolidating the four lawsuits for purposes of hearing and trial (the "Oregon Action"). "The complaints allege, among other things, that our directors violated their fiduciary duties to our shareholders by entering into the Merger Agreement, by putting their personal interests and the interests of the Meiji Yasuda parties ahead of the interests of our shareholders, and by failing to provide our shareholders with material information to make an informed vote on the approval of the Merger Agreement. The complaints also allege that we and the Meiji Yasuda parties knew of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and aided and abetted those breaches. "Based on these allegations, the complaints seek certain injunctive relief, including enjoining the Merger, and, to the extent already implemented, rescission of the Merger. The complaints also seek other damages, including recovery of all damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the individual defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including rescissory damages, and costs of the actions, including attorneys' fees. "On November 3, 2015, we, each of the members of our Board, Meiji Yasuda, and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Oregon Action, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Oregon Action in which we would make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger in exchange for a release. As set forth in the MOU, we, the members of our Board, Meiji Yasuda, and Merger Sub have agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The settlement is subject to court approval. "We made the agreed-upon additional disclosures related to the Merger in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015. As contemplated by the MOU, nothing in the Form 8-K or any stipulation of settlement is an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. StanCorp, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is a holding company and conducts business through wholly-owned operating subsidiaries throughout the United States. Through its subsidiaries, the Company has the authority to underwrite insurance products in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that additional discovery is ongoing in a class action antitrust suit in Chicago, Illinois. "We are involved, along with two other remaining steel manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, originally against eight companies," the Company said. "The Complaint alleges a conspiracy on the part of the original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. The other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period." "In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010 purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee. "All Complaints have been consolidated in the Chicago action and seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. "Following an extensive period of discovery and related motions concerning class certification matters, the Court, on September 9, 2015, certified a class, limited, however, to the issue of the alleged conspiracy alone, and denied class certification on the issue of antitrust impact and damages. As a result, some additional discovery is ongoing. "We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, as has co- defendant SSAB, and this matter is currently pending." Steel Dynamics, Inc. (the company) is one of the largest steel producers and one of the largest metals recyclers in the United States based on a current estimated annual steelmaking and coating capability of approximately 11 million tons, and actual recycling volumes. STS CONSULTING SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Lopez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Lopez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STS Consulting Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00034-NDF (Dist. Wyo., February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). STS is a servicing corporation providing pipeline inspections to oil and gas companies throughout the United States. The Company is headquartered at Longview, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Rosentha, Esq. HATHAWAY & KUNZ P O Box 1208 Cheyenne, WY 82003-1208 Telephone: (307) 634 7723 Facsimile: (307) 634 0985 E-mail: mike@hkwyolaw.com - and - Sharon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net cfundora@bm.net SUSHIN EXPRESS: "Loor" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Franklin G. Loor, and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Sushin Express, Inc., d/b/a Lan Pan Asian Caf‚, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20618-KMM (S.D. Fla., Miami Div. February 20, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sushin Express, a Florida corporation, operates a restaurant business. The restaurant specializes in East and Southeast Asian cuisine including dishes from Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446 1500 Facsimile: (305) 446 1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Hara" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Ads ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hara, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation; Kraft Heinz Foods Company; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-00686-JNE-HB (D. Minn., March 17, 2016), alleges that Defendants made a false and misleading advertising on their Parmesan cheese Products as containing "100%" Parmesan cheese; the front labels of all Defendant's packaging prominently proclaim that their Products contain "100%" grated Parmesan cheese; however, these representations are false. Target Corporation manufactures, sells, distributes and advertises Market Pantry "100%" grated Parmesan cheese. Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures, sells, distributes and advertises Kraft "100%" grated Parmesan cheese. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. manufactures, sells, distributes and advertises its Great Value "100%" grated Parmesan cheese. Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Reinhardt, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Aliano" Suit in Ill. Over Misbranded Oatmeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Aliano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2016-CH-03885, (Ill. Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant from misrepresenting that its Market Pantry Oatmeal food products contain maple syrup and/or maple sugar, when, in fact, maple syrup and maple sugar are not ingredients in the products. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, owns and operates 83 Target stores in the state of Illinois, each of which sell Market Pantry brand products, including Market Pantry Oatmeal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq. Matthew C. De Re., Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com amy@attorneyzim.com jordan@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorney.zim.com TC PIPELINES: Still Defends ERS Class Action in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------- TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al. On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the General Partner, TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries, disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner, TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees. The Partnership has moved to dismiss the complaint and intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted. TC PipeLines is a Delaware master limited partnership, and its common units are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol TCP. It was formed by TransCanada Corporation and its subsidiaries (TransCanada) in 1998, to acquire, own and participate in the management of energy infrastructure businesses in North America. Its pipeline systems transport natural gas in the U.S. TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in the Services Quality Class Action remains pending. The Public Prosecutor Office of the state of Sao Paulo commenced a class action suit claiming moral and property damages suffered by all consumers of telecommunication services from 2004 to 2009 due to the bad quality of service and failures of the communications system. The Public Prosecutors Office suggested a total award against the company of R$1 billion. A judgment was rendered on April 20, 2010 imposing the payment of damages to all consumers who proved to be eligible for the award. Alternatively, if clients do not prove themselves eligible in a number compatible with the severity of the damage after a period of one year, the judgment establishes that R$60 million should be deposited in a special fund for protection of diffuse customer interests (Fundo Especial de Defesa de Reparacao de Interesses Difusos Lesados). It is not possible to estimate how many consumers may present themselves in this procedure nor the values to be claimed by them. The parties filled an appeal and the effects of the sentence were suspended. The appellate court has ruled in our favor and changed the lower court decision. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is awaiting decision. "Despite the possible degree of risk, no value amount was attributed to this action because currently we are unable to calculate the total amount to be paid by us in the event we lose and, as a result, we have not recorded any provisions," the Company said. TGI FRIDAY'S: Plaintiff Must Prove Injury in Drink Price Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the viability of a putative class suit against T.G.I. Friday's for failing to disclose beverage prices on its menu depends on whether the lead plaintiff bought his drink at the behest of his lawyers, a federal judge has ruled. Named plaintiff Michael Grace claims he suffered monetary injury because the $10.39 he was charged for a mixed drink at Friday's on Sept. 30, 2014 was unreasonable and unknown until he got the bill. For federal court jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact, and whether he retained counsel before or after he visited the restaurant is relevant to whether he suffered an injury, U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler of the District of New Jersey ruled March 14 in Grace v. T.G.I. Friday's. Judge Kugler said Friday's can conduct discovery to determine whether Grace was instructed by his lawyer to purchase the drink in question. Grace claims the amount he was charged for the drink at the Friday's in Evesham was more than he expected. His suit names Friday's and two co-defendants, Sentinel Capital Partners and Tri- Artisan Capital, and brings claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative class of customers who visited Friday's restaurants in New Jersey. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on allegations that it was filed without their consent or that of the judge, but Judge Kugler denied the motion. Judge Kugler did dismiss defendants Sentinel and Tri-Artisan, which are described in court papers as "indirect equity investors," without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to plead any facts to support that they were party to any contract between the plaintiff and Friday's. The codefendants were also dismissed for insufficient service of process. Friday's argued that Grace lacks standing if his lawyer directed him to go to the Evesham Friday's and order a beverage. In court papers, the company notes that only six days separate his visit to the restaurant and the filing of his suit. "If Mr. Grace retained counsel before he went to TGIF on Sept. 30, 2014, or if he went to TGIF intending to manufacture a case or controversy, he has not sustained a true injury-in-fact and does not have Article III standing to prosecute this lawsuit," Friday's said in court papers. Judge Kugler said the timeline of events is relevant and that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing at each successive stage of the litigation. "Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims rest on allegations that plaintiff suffered a monetary injury because TGIF charged him in excess of what was reasonable for a beverage, and plaintiff did not know the price until after consuming the beverage and receiving the invoice," Judge Kugler said. "Whether plaintiff retained counsel prior to his Sept. 30, 2014, visit to the Evesham TGIF or in the week between his visit and plaintiff's counsel filing his complaint on Oct. 6, 2014, is therefore relevant and dispositive to whether plaintiff suffered any injury in fact," Judge Kugler said. Instead of stating when he hired his lawyers, Sander Friedman and Wesley Hanna of the Law Office of Sander Friedman in West Berlin, the plaintiff said only that the defendant's standing argument is "premature" and that it's "entirely plausible" that he hired counsel soon after purchasing the drink, Judge Kugler said. But the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing at each successive phase of the litigation, the judge added. Judge Kugler gave each side 30 days to submit supplemental briefs on the standing issue. The judge said he would consider the restaurant chain's motions to dismiss the class allegations and to dismiss the complaint only after the standing issue is resolved. Another suit over undisclosed drink prices, filed by Messrs. Friedman and Hanna against the Applebee's and International House of Pancakes chains, was dismissed in 2012. That suit, Watkins v. DineEquity Inc., alleged violations of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act. Mr. Friedman also filed a separate suit against Friday's, Dugan v. T.G.I Fridays, BUR-L-126-10, which is pending in state court in Burlington County. That suit cites unposted drink prices but focuses on allegations that drinks are more expensive in the chain's dining room than in the bar. In court papers in the Grace suit, Friday's said the plaintiff's standing is further called into question by the fact that the judge in the Dugan case issued a ruling ordering the class period closed Sept. 5, 2014, just a few weeks before the Grace suit was filed. Mr. Friedman said in an email message that he is confident his case will "survive the jurisdictional discovery allowed by the court," adding that the defendant "will make a case out of any and every technicality" to avoid answering why it won't disclose beverage prices on the menu. TGI FRIDAY'S: Class Certification in Drink Price Suit Reversed -------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that March has proven to be a month of bitter drams to swallow for plaintiffs claiming TGI Friday's menus served up consumer fraud in failing to list drink prices. The Appellate Division on March 24 reversed certification of a class of Friday's beer, liquor and soda purchasers going back to 2004, and directed the three named plaintiffs to proceed in the trial court individually. The ruling came less than two weeks after a federal judge called into question the viability of a similar suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey -- based on whether the named plaintiff purchased drinks of his own volition or at his attorneys' urging. In the state court suit, Dugan v. TGI Friday's Inc., plaintiffs Debra Dugan, Alan Fox and Robert Cameron claimed they paid different prices for drinks -- even during the same visits -- depending on whether they ordered from the bar or a table. The suit alleged "menu engineering" and asserted claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). The first of the suits was filed in 2010 and already made one trip up the appellate ladder: Friday's appealed a denial of dismissal, which the Appellate Division declined to hear until the Supreme Court directed it to do so. In an October 2011 decision, an appeals panel found that Dugan's pleadings were sufficient to make out claims. The other named plaintiffs joined after that. Burlington County Superior Court Judge Marc Baldwin denied bids for summary judgment by Friday's and Carlsons Restaurants Worldwide Inc., which previously owned the chain. The judge certified a class of patrons who "relied upon" menus, but purchased beverages for which no price was listed, at one of 14 corporate-owned Friday's restaurants in New Jersey from Jan. 12, 2004, to June 18, 2014 -- the latter date representing when Carlsons sold the chain. The class excluded those who had tipped back their glasses at franchised Friday's locations. Baldwin, at the plaintiffs' request, later broadened the class by removing the "relied upon" language from the class definition, and approved class notices. The defendants appealed again -- and were once again sent to the Appellate Division on a Supreme Court order -- contending that the plaintiffs fell short of establishing a class. In the March 24 published decision, Appellate Division Judges Joseph Yannotti, Michael Guadagno and Francis Vernoia found that the plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate that common fact questions predominate over individual ones in determining ascertainable loss -- a necessary element to a CFA claim. Stated more plainly by the court: "a patron may have chosen to purchase a particular beverage on a specific date for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the lack of menu pricing." "If a person did not look at the beverage section of the menu, TGIF's failure to list prices on the menu had no causal nexus to the person's decision to purchase a particular beverage," Judge Yannotti wrote for the panel. The panel rejected the plaintiffs' claims, based on marketing studies, that Friday's patrons spend $1.72 more per beverage if the price is not listed. Judge Yannotti said, "even if this allegation is proven, it would not establish that all persons . . . spent more on these beverages because prices were not listed on the menus." THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Law Graduate Loses Job-Data Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Thomas Jefferson School of Law did not defraud an alum by inflating its graduate employment statistics, a San Diego jury has found. In a 9-3 vote, the 12-member jury on March 24 rejected the claims of plaintiff Anna Alaburda, who graduated from Thomas Jefferson in 2008 but struggled to find full-time legal employment. The jury deliberated for a day following nearly three weeks of testimony, during which Ms. Alaburda's attorney, Brian Procel, argued that the law school's process for collecting postgraduate employment data was deeply flawed and designed to make the school's alumni appear more successful on the job market than they actually were. Attorney Mike Sullivan, representing Thomas Jefferson, argued that Ms. Alaburda had turned down several job offers after graduation and that she hadn't offered proof that the school deliberately fudged its job numbers. He also told jurors that Ms. Alaburda -- who had sought $125,000 -- had not suffered any damages and attended the San Diego law school because it was the only one she got into. Moreover, she received a $20,000 scholarship from the school, he said in court. Ms. Alaburda and Mr. Procel declined to speak to reporters immediately after the verdict, according to local news reports. "I am pleased that the jury affirmed that Thomas Jefferson School of Law did not falsify its post-graduate employment statistics," said Thomas Jefferson dean Thomas Guernsey in a written statement. "The decision by the jury further validates our unwavering commitment to providing our students with the knowledge, skills and tools necessary to excel as law students, pass the bar exam and succeed in their professional careers." The case was closely watched in the legal academy in part because it is the only one of 15 similar lawsuits to go to trial. Dozens of law graduates across the country sued their alma maters in 2011 and 2012 claiming they used deceptive graduate employment numbers to lure students. Most of those cases, filed against schools in Illinois, New York, Michigan, Florida and California, were dismissed, with judges finding a lack of specific evidence that the schools had lied and said unhappy alumni should have done more research. THUMBTACK INC: Violated FCRA and UCL, "Rhom" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rhom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Thumbtack, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551067 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Sam Francisco, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages due to Thumbtacks's alleged systematic and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Cal. Civil Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the Cal. Bus., & Prof. Code. Thumbtack is an online directory service for local businesses. The Company's service allows the consumer to vet, contact, and book service professionals the moment they are found. The Company services both the consumer and the seller, and brings them together for transaction. The Company is based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq. Counsel One, PC 9301 Wilshire Blvd Ste 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277 9945 Facsimile: (424) 277 3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com TINLEY PARK: "Stuckly" Files Suit Over Zoning Provisions -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stuckly, Patricia Carey, Eileen Carpenter, Sandra Connolly, Karen Lyons, Hobert Lyons, Ed Maloney, Patricia Maloney, Monica Ruban, individually, the Plaintiffs, v. Village Of Tinley Park, a Municipal Corporation, David G. Seaman, Mayor, Patrick E. Rea, Clerk, Brian S. Maher, T.J. Grady, Michael J. P Annitto, Jacob C. Vandenberg, Brian H. Younker, Bernard E. Brady, Trustees, Thomas Melody, Village Attorney, Amy Connolly, Planning Director, Rita Walker, Chairman, Plan Commission, Art Pierce, Rvtember, Plan Commission, Bob Mcclellan, Member, Plan Commission, Bill Reidy, Mark Moylan, Member, Plan Commission, Tom Mahoney, Member, Plan Commission, Jeff Ficaro, L\1ember, Plan Commission, Tim Stanton, Member, Plan Commission, and Gina Miller, Member, Plan Commission, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-Ch-03974 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Chancery Division, March 22, 2016), seeks unenforcibility declaration of an alleged unlawful, and arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable decision of the Defendants to amend the "Legacy Code" zoning provisions of the Tinley Park Zoning Ordinance. The Village of Tinley Park, is a municipal corporation duly established and authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois. David G. Seaman, is the duly appointed and qualified Mayor/Village President of the Village of Tinley Park, Cook and Will Counties, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen E. Eberhardt, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT 16710 Oak Park Avenue Tinley Park, IL 60477 Telephone: (708) 633 9100 Facsimile: (708) 633 9102 TRANSOCEAN LTD: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Section 14(a) Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the March 14, 2014 judgment of the district court dismissing the Section 14(a) claim asserted by plaintiff- appellant DeKalb County Pension Fund in the case captioned, DEKALB COUNTY PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., ROBERT L. LONG, JON. A MARSHALL, and TRANSOCEAN INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 2:15-CV-864 (WHW-CLW) (2nd Cir.). On October 2, 2007, GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF), "an offshore oil and gas drilling contractor," and defendant-appellee Transocean Inc. (Transocean), "one of the largest international providers of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas," jointly disseminated a proxy statement concerning a proposed merger between the companies. The proxy statement included numerous representations regarding Transocean's compliance with various environmental laws, its training and safety programs, and its equipment maintenance, among other subjects. GSF's shareholders, including DeKalb, approved the merger at a November 9, 2007 shareholder meeting. Pursuant to the merger's terms, DeKalb exchanged each of its GSF shares for 0.4757 Transocean shares and a $22.46 cash payment. On September 30, 2010, Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5, Ohio Pension Fund (Bricklayers) filed a class-action complaint against Transocean, as well as defendants-appellees Robert L. Long and Jon A. Marshall, the chief executive officers of Transocean and GSF, respectively, at the time of the merger. Bricklayers alleged that the proxy statement disseminated in advance of the merger "contained false and material statements and omissions regarding Transocean's dangerously lax safety protocols for oil drilling and reoccurring issues with its blowout preventer technology," in violation of Section 14(a). On April 7, 2011, the DeKalb-Bricklayers Group filed an amended class-action complaint, in which it asserted violations of Section 14(a), Rule 14a-9, and Section 20(a). "Section 20(a) establishes secondary liability for 'every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person' directly liable under the" 1934 Act. "To state a claim of control person liability under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must show," inter alia, "a primary violation by the controlled person. On March 30, 2012, the District Court dismissed Bricklayers from the action for lack of standing, finding that it had "failed to proffer any facts showing that it was eligible to vote" on the merger or "that it retained its Transocean stock after" the Deepwater Horizon disaster. This dismissal left DeKalb as the sole lead plaintiff. DeKalb filed a second amended class-action complaint on April 18, 2012, in which it again asserted Section 14(a), Rule 14a-9, and Section 20(a) claims. On August 30, 2013, defendants-appellees filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim on the ground that it was time-barred by the applicable statutes of repose, which motion the District Court granted on March 14, 2014. In granting the motion, the District Court borrowed the three-year statutes of repose that applied to Sections 9(f) and 18(a) before the passage of SOX and applied them to DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim, but did not address whether SOX had extended Section 9(f)'s or Section 18(a)'s statutes of repose to five years, apparently assuming that it had not. On appeal, DeKalb's argues that it requires the Court to determine which section is most analogous to Section 14(a) and then to apply that section's repose language to Section 14(a) and that even if it did not appear in the action until after the applicable statutes of repose had run, "the District Court's opinion would still need to be reversed [or] remanded because Bricklayers' original class action complaint was timely filed" on September 30, 2010, and DeKalb's "lead plaintiff motion of December 3, 2010 relates back to the initial filing." In his Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/F9Gni2from Leagle.com, Judge Cabranes found DeKalb's arguments to be without merit, and held that the District Court's March 14, 2014 judgment dismissing DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim is time-barred by the applicable three-year statutes of repose and its Section 20 claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Second Circuit panel consists of Judge Cabranes and Judges Reena Raggi and Richard C. Wesley. DeKalb County Pension Fund is represented by Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- & David R. Scott, Esq. -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT+SCOTT LLP Transocean, Inc. is represented by John W. Spiegel, Esq. -- John.Spiegel@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP TRICON AMERICAN: Violates Lease Contract, "Hernandez" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Encarnacion Hernandez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tricon American Homes LLC, and Does 1-20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. BC614255 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016), alleges that Tricon breached the lease contract where it charged excessive and unreasonable post move out "clean- up" fees; failed to provide written notice of Plaintiffs' right to a pre-move out inspection, the right to be present during the inspection, and an opportunity to be present during the inspection; failed to provide an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleanings; failed to provide the opportunity, following an initial inspection, to remedy any identified discrepancies and to clean the premises; failed to return Plaintiffs' security deposit; failed to provide copies of documents showing charges incurred and deducted by Tricon to repair or clean the residential premises; and charged for utilities (gas, water, and/or power) incurred after vacating and moving out. Tricon American Homes LLC, engaged in the business of acquiring and leasing single-family homes, including predominantly lower- income and minority communities. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com TYSON FOODS: Class-Action Litigators Laud Supreme Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that in the second win this term for class action plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 22 ruled, 6-2, in favor of Tyson Foods employees seeking payment for time spent donning and doffing protective gear. The court rejected arguments by Tyson Foods that the employees' work experiences were not similar enough to sustain a class action. "In this case each employee worked in the same facility, did similar work, and was paid under the same policy," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "Under these circumstances the experiences of a subset of employees can be probative as to the experiences of all of them." Class-action litigators praised the decision. "This was a huge David v. Goliath victory for over 3,000 low income workers who took on the second largest meat packer in the planet, Tyson foods," said Carl Mayer of Mayer Law Group in New York. "Their claim was simple: the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires workers to get all of their wages they are entitled too, including the time they spend putting on protective gear before slaughtering animals." Justice Kennedy cautioned, however, that the ruling was narrow. "While petitioner, respondents, or their respective amici may urge adoption of broad and categorical rules governing the use of representative and statistical evidence in class actions, this case provides no occasion to do so." He also said the ruling does not resolve the question of whether uninjured plaintiffs should be compensated as part of the class action. That issue, Justice Kennedy wrote, is not yet "fairly presented by this case, because the damages award has not yet been disbursed, nor does the record indicate how it will be disbursed." Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote a concurrence expressing concern about that aspect of the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. agreed with part of Roberts' concurrence as well as a dissent written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas objected to the district court's handling of evidence in the case, and disagreed with most aspects of the majority's reasoning. Class action defense lawyers drew solace from the court's decision to sidestep the issue of non-injured plaintiffs. "The question that interested most of the class action bar -- when it is proper to certify a class that includes uninjured class members -- was not decided," said Kevin McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. The ruling in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo upholds a nearly $6 million verdict in favor of workers at an Iowa pork processing plant who jointly challenged the underpayment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the class action. It was the most recent of several Supreme Court cases dealing with the compensability of time needed by workers for "donning and doffing" work outfits and safety gear. The Tyson case was also the second class action class ruled on this term, with two more still pending. The first, Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, also went in favor of plaintiffs in a ruling issued in January. The decision on March 22 was a win for David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who represented the Tyson plaintiffs. Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin argued on behalf of Tyson. It was clear from oral argument last November that the justices were sympathetic to the plaintiffs' cause. Mr. Phillips argued that the class was invalid because of the "widely differing" amounts of time workers at the plant take depending on the gear needed for different tasks at the processing plant. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said "it did not seem like that wide a disparity," and Justice Kennedy said, "I just don't understand your argument." Justice Sonia Sotomayor also said during oral argument, "I'm completely at a loss as to what you're complaining about." UBER TECHNOLOGIES: French Court Upholds Geolocalization ------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that France's top administrative court has upheld the right of car services like Uber to use geolocalization for potential customers, dealing a blow to a law pushed by taxi drivers who say the app-based ride-hailing company is competing unfairly. The March 9 decision found that the law violated European Union rules by targeting a specific service. But the decision upheld France's effort more generally to regulate car services. French taxi drivers have protested repeatedly, and sometimes violently, against Uber, and two of its French executives went on trial over allegations that the company's now-defunct low-cost offering operated illegally. Uber continues to operate with professional drivers in France. It is banned entirely in Spain and Italy and under pressure elsewhere in Europe. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in N.J. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned Georgina Sandoval, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:16-cv- 01583-WJM-MF (Dist. N.J., Newark, March 22, 2016). United Collection Bureau provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services. It serves various industries, including commercial, credit card, education, financial, government, healthcare, telecommunications, and utilities. The company was formerly known as UCB, Inc. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is based in Toledo, Ohio with additional offices in Florida and Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 UNITED FABRICS: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Wrongful Termination -------------------------------------------------------------- Dyshell Stanley v. United Fabrics, Inc., Robert Grobman; Neal Grobman; John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001046-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment after one month of medical leave caused by renal failure. Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. United Fabrics, Inc. is a wholesale to-the-trade distributor of upholstery and decorative fabrics, vinyl and genuine leather. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------- John Kelly v. United Parcel Service, Inc.; Pete Dempsey; Jill Baker and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001049-19 ((N.J. Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment due to depression and PTSD- like symptoms. Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an express carrier and package delivery company, and a provider of specialized transportation, logistics, capital, and e-commerce services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 UNITED SERVICES: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Attorney Sanctions -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that Judge P.K. Holmes III presided over the show-cause hearing at the federal courthouse in Fort Smith. As of March 27, an order had not been issued involving possible sanctions against 17 lawyers who were involved in a class-action lawsuit. On Feb. 18, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III held a show-cause hearing in a courtroom of the Judge Isaac C. Parker Federal Building & Courthouse in Fort Smith. He had invited the lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be sanctioned for maneuvers made in the case that appeared to him to be forum shopping. The attorneys denied doing anything wrong. At the end of the Feb. 18 hearing, Judge Holmes said he would take the matter under advisement, and the earliest he would have a ruling would be in four weeks -- which was March 17. There isn't a deadline for the ruling to be made. At the center of the hearing was the class-action case of Adams v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA). It had been on Holmes' docket for 17 months, when it was dismissed in June 2015 and immediately refiled in state court with a settlement already attached. Holmes didn't know the case had been refiled in state court until he read about it in Arkansas Business. If the lawyers do get sanctioned, it's unclear what it might mean for their careers. "It would have to be disclosed, certainly if they were trying to practice in another state, even if only temporarily," said W. Bradley Wendel, a law professor who teaches ethics at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York. Mr. Wendel, who wasn't familiar with the facts in the Adams' case, said the effect on an attorney's career would depend on the nature of the severity of the sanctions. "It could potentially be important if the judge makes the finding that they engaged in serious misconduct," he said. "Then it's the kind of thing that would have an effect on their ability to practice elsewhere." In the show-cause hearing, attorney David Matthews of Rogers represented the attorneys for USAA in the class-action case, including Lyn Pruitt of the Mitchell Williams firm in Little Rock, and Wystan Ackerman and Stephen Goldman, both of Robinson Cole of Hartford, Connecticut. Mr. Matthews told Judge Holmes that sanctions against the attorneys could damage his clients' careers. "They have each spent their entire careers in ways that have led them to being acknowledged to be among the best of our profession, serving in important roles both in adjunct academia and in professional organizations," he said. "Yet a life of achievement is now in jeopardy of being tainted." All of Mr. Matthews' clients have national practices and often have to apply to courts in states where they aren't licensed to try a single case. "Thus a sanction in this case could presumably be used to try to preclude their participation in future cases in different courts," Mr. Matthews said. "Their very livelihood is at stake." As long as attorneys are allowed to resume practice after a sanction, it might not be a huge stain on their career, said Geoffrey Hazard, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who specializes in legal ethics and professional responsibility. "I'm sure they don't like the idea at all," said Mr. Hazard, who also was unfamiliar with the facts in the case. "It's very important symbolically, morally, professionally, but functionally, not so much." Mr. Wendel said that judges understand that issuing sanctions is a "regrettable necessity." "I think judges understand that it's part of the job that they have to exercise control," he said. "And they have to make sure the lawyers respect the rules." UNITED STATES: Hamscom Air Base Faces Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Redmond, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that in his three decades as a civilian worker at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mike Griffin, a program manager, has been in charge of overseeing the multibillion-dollar AWACS warning and control system and other expensive weapons systems. "We (program managers) buy weapons systems for the Department of Justice," said Mr. Griffin, who has worked at Hanscom, either privately or as a government employee, since 1987. "I am entrusted to do that, but now I am training the people who are 40 or younger who are getting promoted to a job I'm already doing without the pay," he said. "It's demoralizing." Mr. Griffin and nine other Hanscom workers age 55-65 filed an age- discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2014 claiming Hanscom officials have repeatedly bypassed older workers for promotion in favor of younger, less experienced workers. Tom Siracusa, a GS13 at Hanscom and union local president of SEIU/NAGE, sought class-action status due to the potential of hundreds of employees at other governmental facilities facing the same alleged discrimination. Last August, EEOC Administrative Judge Kathleen Mearn Clarke denied the class-action status, not due to merit, but due to numbers. Judge Clarke ruled that a small group of only 10 workers at Hanscom does not qualify for class-action status. As for the merits of the complaint, Judge Clarke wrote that Mr. Siracusa showed that Hanscom officials "engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination based upon non-selection of older workers in favor of significantly younger, less qualified workers . . ." Since 2010, when the government began offering GS13 positions, GS12 workers like Griffin, 63, of Mr. Methuen, and Mr. Siracusa, 65, of Wilmington, began applying for the promotions and the corresponding $5,000 bump in their $90,000 or so annual salary, a potential increase of $35,000 to $40,000 to their retirement. But Mr. Siracusa claims the promotion rules changed. In the past, the three-panel interviewers gave more weight to the applicant's resume and references and a less weight to the interview. Now all three aspects are equal, so someone who does well during the interview can be chosen over someone with more experience, Mr. Siracusa said. Some senior employees have interviewed up to 20 times and can't get past the subjective standards of the interview. Messrs. Griffin and Siracusa have taken their complaints to the next step. The EEOC has assigned each person moving forward with a complaint an investigator who will probe the allegations and issue a report either substantiating the claims or rejecting them. When contacted by The Sun, Chuck Paone, director of public affairs at Hanscom, released a statement: "These allegations are currently being investigated," he states. "As a matter of policy, we do not comment on ongoing investigations." But as both men near retirement age, time to resolve what they see as unfairness in the promotion process is not on their side. "What we really want is for them to just acknowledge the problem and fix it for the people who come after us," Mr. Griffin said. UNITED STATES: Tea Party Activists Laud Court Ruling v. IRS ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan Sewell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that tea party activists are heartened by a federal appeals court ruling that strengthens their legal push against the IRS for alleged targeting in past election cycles. A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chastised government foot-dragging while ordering the agency to give attorneys for tea party groups details on tax- exempt applicants. A U.S. district judge in Cincinnati this year certified the case as a class action. Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin praised the original plaintiffs for "relentless pursuit of the truth." The 2013 lawsuit was among litigation, congressional hearings and federal investigations over treatment of conservative groups who said they were singled out for extra IRS scrutiny. The Justice Department decided against any criminal charges after its probe. "It's about time," Tim Savaglio of the Liberty Township Tea Party said of the federal order to release IRS records. The IRS inspector general said in a 2013 report that applications with such words as "tea party" and "patriots" were set aside, among hundreds of applications including some from liberal groups that languished. Groups on agency "Be On the Lookout" lists received what the 6th Circuit ruling called "crushing demands" for additional information such as lists of donors, the content of speeches and presentations, details of activities and copies of newsletters, emails and advertising materials. Mr. Savaglio said his group went more than a year without response to its application, then received a letter seeking more information about its activities. He said that after providing information, the tea party group got another letter asking for clarification. IRS employees, he said, took exception to such things as postings on the group's Facebook page, including reposts by people not in their group. "We considered ourselves an education group," Mr. Savaglio said. He said his group hasn't responded to an IRS request to re-apply for special tax status. Ms. Martin praised the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, the California- based group since joined by other groups in the Cincinnati lawsuit. The group alleged violation of privacy laws and its constitutional rights. "The entire movement owes the NorCal Tea Party their thanks for keeping the pressure on the IRS and never giving up the fight," she said in a statement. Much of the agency's top leadership was replaced, and the government says changed have been made in how tax-exempt applications are handled. The Justice Department didn't respond immediately to a request for comment on the 6th Circuit ruling. Judge Raymond Kethledge of 6th Circuit wrote that the IRS' response to the lawsuit "has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it," and said the court expects it "will do better going forward" and comply immediately with court-ordered discovery. UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Sued Over "Made Proudly In The USA" Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Giffin v. Universal Protein Supplements Corporation d/b/a Universal Nutrition, Universal USA, and/or Animal Pak, Case No. BC613414 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), alleged that Defendants packaged, advertised, marketed, promoted, and sold its Class Products as "Made Proudly In The USA," or some derivative thereof; however, although Defendant represents that its Class Products are made in the USA, or some derivative thereof, Defendant's Class Products are wholly and/or substantially manufactured or produced with components that are manufactured, grown and/or sourced outside of the U.S. Universal Protein Supplements Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, is an American conglomerate that manufactures and/or distributes various products, including consumable consumer packaged goods such as dietary supplements and over the counter workout products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Andrei Armas, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com andrei@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Investors File Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reports that University of Phoenix sued for prohibited recruitment tactics, as well as its parent company Apollo Education Group Inc., after investors claim the for-profit college hid millions of revenue dollars which came from a sophisticated, yet prohibited, strategy of targeting veterans. On March 21, investors of a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Arizona said the University of Phoenix violated federal securities laws by touting its financial success while at the same time covering up "a substantial portion" of its profits came from military recruitment tactics and marketing which are prohibited. Apollo's stock, as a result, "traded at artificially inflated levels," the investors wrote. The improper recruiting by the University of Phoenix was brought to attention after a Reveal investigation exposed how the school violated a 2012 executive order intended to protect veterans from abusive recruiting tactics by for-profit colleges. The order was bypassed by the University of Phoenix after about $1 million was paid to the military in recent years to allow exclusive access to several military bases, where they held events disguised as r‚sum‚ workshops and included military logos without permission on "challenge coins" distributed by recruiters. As a result of the investigation, the Pentagon prompted the University of Phoenix to be put on probation and ban troops from using federal funds for the school's classes in October. In January, the Pentagon lifted the ban, although the school remains under formal probation and will be monitored closely by the Pentagon until 2017. According to the class-action lawsuit, the errors the University of Phoenix made with the military caused its stocks to drop. The lawsuit stated Apollo Education's stocks dropped 80 percent after recent events, "erasing more than $3 billion in market capitalization," stated the lawsuit. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Dismisses Students' Due Process Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a state district judge has dismissed lawsuits filed by two men who claimed the University of Texas unfairly targeted them and denied them due process after they were accused of committing sexual assaults. The two, each only identified as "John Doe" in the litigation, both denied the sexual assault allegations and neither face criminal charges. The two men -- one is an undergraduate, and the other already earned a degree -- asked the court to bar UT from meting out punishments based on the sexual assault allegations. Those punishments could include stripping one of his degree and expelling the other, said Brian Roark of Austin's Botsford & Roark, who represents the two men. But on Feb. 29, 345th District Court Judge Stephen Yelenosky dismissed the cases because the two men had not yet exhausted the university's administrative procedures. J.B. Bird, director of media outreach for UT-Austin, had no comment. In answers filed in court, UT denied the men's allegations. Roark said he was not surprised by the dismissals, although he disagreed with them. "We filed this early because UT's administrative hearing is itself a violation of due process," Mr. Roark said. "This ruling was not about the merits of our cases." Mr. Roark expects his clients to work through the UT administrative hearing process and then pursue all necessary appeals through the university. But Mr. Roark holds out little hope for success in that arena because the UT administrative proceedings deny them due process, he said. Specifically, the rules UT has established for the proceedings do not require that his clients are provided with any or all exculpatory evidence, an advocate at hearings, or -- perhaps, most significantly -- the right to cross-examine their accusers, Mr. Roark said. So most likely, eventually his clients will return to the courthouse to re-file claims against UT, Mr. Roark said. Nationwide, students who have been accused of sexual assaults and punished by their schools have filed claims against those universities, including Columbia, Brown, and Amherst. In those claims, several of which are pending in federal courts, the students allege that the schools violated their civil rights and discriminated against them because of their gender. Universities began bolstering their punishments of those accused of sexual assaults about four years ago. The trend started after 2011 when, in response to reports of widespread sexual assaults on U.S. campuses, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued a directive, which stressed that the federal agency would withhold federal funding if schools did not pursue and stop sexual assaults on campus. Mr. Roark believes that the schools, such as UT, became overzealous about disciplining students to ensure their federal funding. US OIL FUND: NY Action in Initial Stages for New Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on July 31, 2015, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was added as a new defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. The action is in its initial stages as it relates to the new defendants, including RBC Capital Markets, LLC. US OIL FUND: Canada Actions in Initial Stages --------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that class action lawsuits in Canada are in their initial stages. On September 11, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and a motion for authorization of a class action was filed in the Quebec Superior Court, both on behalf of an alleged class of Canadian investors, against Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and a number of other foreign exchange dealers. The Canadian class actions allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of currency trades and are in their initial stages. Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the Foreign Exchange Matters or the timing of their ultimate resolution. US OIL FUND: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed District Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Chancery with respect to both the appeal and cross-appeal in a class action lawsuit. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Court of Chancery) in a class action brought by former shareholders of Rural/Metro Corporation, held RBC Capital Markets, LLC liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by three Rural/Metro directors, but did not make an additional award for attorney's fees. A final judgment was entered on February 19, 2015 in the amount of US$93 million plus post judgment interest. RBC Capital Markets, LLC appealed the Court of Chancery's determination of liability and quantum of damages, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the ruling on additional attorneys' fees. On November 30, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery with respect to both the appeal and cross- appeal. RBC Capital Markets, LLC is cooperating with an investigation by the SEC relating to this matter. The United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cornell" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leticia Cornell, an individual, for herself and all members of the putative class v. Verizon California, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC614461 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay proper wage or compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Verizon California, Inc. provides domestic wireline telecommunications services to local access transport areas in California; offers exchange telecommunication service for the transmission of telecommunications among customers located within a local calling area. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Kitty K. Szeto, Esq. John M. Bickford, Esq. Eric N. Wilson, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 VISA INC: Judge Denies Retailers' Preliminary Injunction Request ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup didn't take kindly to a request for a preliminary injunction filed by lawyers for small Florida retailers who are pursuing antitrust claims against credit card companies and large banks. Judge Alsup on March 17 denied the plaintiffs' request for a nationwide ban on a shift in liability for fraudulent credit card transactions to merchants just days after it hit his docket. Alsup wrote that the motion filed by lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Florida-based Devine Goodman Rasco & Watts-FitzGerald was "so deficient that it would be a monumental waste of resources to require the eighteen defendants to respond and oppose the motion." The plaintiffs' team filed suit claiming Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., American Express Co., Discover Financial Services and a collection of large banks conspired to shift liability for fraudulent transactions in the U.S. to merchants last October as part of the move to cards that include electronic chips. To avoid liability, retailers had to install new chip-compatible equipment and have it inspected by third-party certifiers by the October deadline. According to the suit, certification has been a "nebulous process that was utterly outside [merchants'] control." Shortly after filing the complaint, plaintiffs asked for an injunction barring the so-called "liability shift" until after plaintiffs' systems are certified. Judge Alsup pointed out the only record supporting the plaintiffs' motion so far consists of two 1 1/2-page declarations: One from a liquor store cashier who said customers have been disgruntled that they have to swipe their cards and show ID and another from an executive assistant who handles chargebacks for the stores noting an increase from one or two per week to upwards of 15 since October. "The sworn record shows no more than an uptick in inconvenience, lost time, unhappy customers, and lost sales, all of which can be compensated for via a damage award," Judge Alsup wrote. "These well-heeled defendants will be good for the judgment." Robbins Geller's Patrick Coughlin didn't respond to a message seeking comment. As of March 18, only defense counsel for Visa Inc. had entered an appearance on the docket. The company is represented by Robert Vizas and Sharon Mayo of Arnold & Porter. Judge Alsup wrote toward the end of the March 17 order that his decision on the preliminary injunction "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)." VOLKSWAGEN AG: FTC Files Suit Over False "Clean Diesel" Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Biesecker and Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, report that a federal consumer watchdog sued Volkswagen on March 29, charging the company made false claims in commercials promoting its "Clean Diesel" vehicles as environmentally friendly. The German automaker hastily pulled the ads following last year's admission it had installed illegal software on its diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. U.S. regulators say Volkswagen's engines spewed up to 40 times the allowed levels of air pollutants in real-world driving conditions. The Federal Trade Commission alleges that Volkswagen deceived customers during a seven-year period by selling its diesel cars based on fraudulent claims made through its marketing campaigns. That campaign included Super Bowl ads, online social media campaigns and print advertising targeted to "environmentally conscious" consumers. "Hybrids? They're so last year," Volkswagen proclaimed in a mailer to customers promoting its 2009 Jetta TDI. "Now going green doesn't have to feel like you're going green." The FTC's action is the latest blow to Volkswagen, which also faces more than $20 billion in potential fines for violating U.S. clean air regulations. "For years Volkswagen's ads touted the company's 'Clean Diesel' cars even though it now appears Volkswagen rigged the cars with devices designed to defeat emissions tests," said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. "Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen's deceptive and unfair practices." The Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also weighing potential criminal charges against the company and senior executives. The company also faces hundreds of class action lawsuits filed on behalf of angry customers. A federal judge in California overseeing the raft of civil litigation has given the company until April 21 to come up with a recall and compensation plan covering the nearly 600,000 diesel cars sold in the U.S. containing the so-called "defeat devices" designed to game government emissions tests. Volkswagen Group of America spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said on March 29 the company is reviewing the latest lawsuit and "continues to cooperate with all relevant U.S. regulators." "Our most important priority is to find a solution to the diesel emissions matter and earn back the trust of our customers and dealers as we build a better company," Ms. Ginivan said. With scores of unsold diesels collecting dust on the lots of VW's dealers, legal and auto industry analysts predicted the company's woes will continue to deepen. "Every government agency that is even remotely impacted by this situation will sue to recoup what they consider damages to the agency's constituents," said Rebecca Lindland, senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book. There's really no end in sight to this situation and all VW can do is continue to cooperate and work on a fix." Alan Brown, general manager of a VW dealer in Lewisville, Texas, and chairman of the company's National Dealer Advisory Council, said dealers are eager to get the scandal behind them. He said diesel-powered VWs previously accounted for 25 percent to 40 percent of sales for many U.S. dealerships. Ms. Brown said he didn't think the latest lawsuit will hurt sales any further because it raises issues that have been aired previously. "I think at this stage of the game, nothing really shocks any of us," he said of the FTC lawsuit. "The dealers just want the distractions to go away. There's nothing worse than the public wanting your product and you can't sell it." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Until April 21 to Draw Up Emissions Solution --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad and David Ruiz, writing for Law.com, report that a federal judge in San Francisco has given Volkswagen A.G. until April 21 to come up with a plan to fix the emissions problems plaguing its diesel vehicles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing 500 lawsuits against Volkswagen, originally had set a deadline to come up with a plan to fix about 600,000 diesel vehicles in the United States with a defeat device in them designed to cheat emissions tests. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said the cars emit as much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides. In court on March 24, Judge Breyer said that Volkswagen and the EPA had made "substantial progress," based on the status reports of former FBI director Robert Mueller, who is serving as settlement master, but both sides were "unable to announce what that resolution is because there continues to be engineering technicalities that all the parties are diligently working on resolving." In setting a new deadline for April, Judge Breyer emphasized that the plan must be "specific and detailed as to the proposed timing, what cars are involved, payments to the consumer, and the like." If no plan is reached, Judge Breyer said he would "seriously consider whether to hold a bench trial this summer." Lead plaintiffs lawyers in the litigation have pushed for a July trial, but Volkswagen's lawyers have called that timetable premature. Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan wrote in an email: "Volkswagen is committed to resolving the U.S. regulatory investigation into the diesel emissions matter as quickly as possible and to implementing a solution for affected vehicles." On Feb. 22, lead plaintiffs lawyers filed three consolidated nationwide class actions: One for individual car owners and lessees of Volkswagen's "clean diesel" cars, one for used car dealerships that haven't been able to sell those cars and one for dealerships that haven't been able to sell competing "clean diesel" vehicles, such as those made by General Motors Co. The complaints raise various claims including violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Lanham Act, and several state laws involving advertising, warranties and consumer protection. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dealers Meet with German Execs Amid Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that Volkswagen dealers have had enough. Promises of 800,000 sales never came true. Eurocentric product planning created a car-heavy lineup in the U.S. market, where crossovers are king. The diesel emissions scandal has dented business and soured customer sentiment. The abrupt departure of Michael Horn, who was CEO of VW of America, on March 9 seemed to be the last straw for VW dealers, many of whom felt they had lost their only champion with the clout to get things done at company headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany. Mr. Horn's exit set Alan Brown, chairman of the Volkswagen National Dealer Advisory Council, into action. The council issued a stern press release denouncing Mr. Horn's departure, while talks of class-action lawsuits began to gain steam from elsewhere in VW's dealer network. To head off a mutiny, Mr. Brown and two others on VW's dealer council brought their concerns directly to VW, meeting with global brand chief Herbert Diess, newly appointed North America chief Hinrich Woebcken, global sales boss Juergen Stackmann and North America sales boss Ludger Fretzen. Now, Mr. Brown, 44, says VW needs to sell 500,000 units annually for a healthy dealer network. Mr. Brown, who is general manager and partner of Lewisville Volkswagen near Dallas, spoke with Staff Reporter Ryan Beene. Mr. Brown told Automotive News' Mr. Beene "The agenda of the meeting in Germany was to really settle in and prepare this new leadership for NADA. This new leadership team in Dr. Diess, Mr. Stackmann and Mr. Woebcken, they want to win. They want to make their mark, and they see it as a great opportunity to make their mark because all of the leadership prior to this has been ineffective in the U.S. market." "The core of the conversation was very simple: 330,000 units does nothing but lose Volkswagen a ton of money and puts the dealer at about half of NADA [guidelines] on return on sales. It's a train wreck for both of us. Volkswagen AG has made this great investment in the last seven years. The dealer network has made this great infrastructure investment in the last seven years, and we're both looking at each other saying "this ain't working." We're going to have to be in that 450,000 to 500,000 unit range as a new baseline that we build from." VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kentucky AG Files Suit Over Emissions Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear sued Volkswagen on March 22, claiming the German automaker's diesel emissions cheating scheme violated the state's consumer protection law. The lawsuit, filed in a state court, seeks civil penalties potentially totaling millions of dollars, plus restitution for the owners of nearly 3,800 vehicles registered in Kentucky, Mr. Beshear said. "We have a very strong law that is meant to prevent companies like this . . . from making an outright lie that they then use to sell what's a pretty expensive product," Mr. Beshear said at a state Capitol news conference. Kentucky's suit continues the fallout against Volkswagen since its admission last year that nearly 600,000 cars were sold in the U.S. with software that regulators say was designed to cheat on required emissions tests. Mr. Beshear said Volkswagen must be held accountable for false promotion of its vehicles in Kentucky. "They convinced Kentuckians that wanted to own a 'green' vehicle that they were buying one," the Democratic attorney general said. "All the while their cheat devices were convincing the public that these vehicles were clean when they in fact were not." A VW spokeswoman, Jeannine Ginivan, said on March 22 that the company typically doesn't comment on litigation. Volkswagen is working with federal environmental regulators and others to resolve the matter as quickly as possible, she said. Kentucky's suit was filed in Franklin County Circuit Court in Frankfort. Four other states -- Texas, New Mexico, New Jersey and West Virginia -- have filed separate lawsuits against the automaker, according to Mr. Beshear's office. The company potentially faces more than $20 billion in fines from state and federal regulators, as well as hundreds of class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of angry vehicle owners. Volkswagen in September admitted to U.S. regulators that it had used illegal software installed in its so-called "Clean Diesel" engines. The move allowed cars to pass laboratory emissions tests while spewing levels of harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times the level allowed when operating on real roads. The automaker's lone U.S. plant is in Tennessee. WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Data Breach Action in California ----------------------------------------------------- Web.com Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on February 2, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The complaint arises from the data breach discovered and disclosed by the Company in August 2015, and alleges that the Company violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Data Breach Act and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for money had and received. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief against the Company. Web.com Group, Inc. provides a full range of Internet services to small businesses to help them compete and succeed online. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Incident Suit Postponed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the trial in one lawsuit related to the Geismar Incident has been postponed to September. "Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that we have recovered from our insurers. The trial for certain plaintiffs claiming personal injury, that was set to begin on June 15, 2015, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has been postponed to September 6, 2016. "We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence." Williams Companies is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Alaska High Court Decision Expected in Spring ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in the in Alaska Refinery Contamination Litigation is expected this spring. In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination. In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October of 2015. The Supreme Court's decision is expected this spring. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion to dismiss a stockholder class action in Delaware remains pending. "In July 2015, a purported stockholder of us filed a putative class and derivative action on behalf of us in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware," the Company said. "The action names as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors as well as WPZ, and names us as a nominal defendant." "On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for such action, alleging that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with our proposed merger with Energy Transfer is false and misleading. As relief, the complaint requests, among other things, an injunction requiring us to make supplemental disclosures and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2015, we moved to dismiss the amended complaint. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Facing Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that between October 5, 2015 and January 19, 2016, purported stockholders of us filed seven putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one suit in U.S. District Court in Delaware, and one suit in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma, each challenging our proposed merger with Energy Transfer. "The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of our Board of Directors, certain entities affiliated with Energy Transfer (the "ETE defendants"), and us," the Company said. "The allegations include claims that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to our stockholders by agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price, that the ETE defendants and/or we aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duties, and that our directors violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information about the merger. Two lawsuits also claim that disclosures about the merger violate federal securities laws and our Directors, we, and ETE defendants are liable for such violations. The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." Williams Companies is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WS BADCOCK: "Harp" Class Action Moved to M.D. Fla. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Harp, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. W.S. Badcock Corporation, doing business as: Badcock & More, Case No. 2016-CA-619, was removed from the Polk County Court, to the US District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida, Tampa. Middle District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00712-EAK-MAP to the proceeding. W.S. Badcock owns and operates home furniture retail stores. The company sells sofas, loveseats, sectional sofas, chaises, chairs, recliners, sleeper sofas, accent tables, ottomans, beds, chests, media chests, dressers and mirrors, nightstands, linens, bunk beds, trundle beds, cabinets, barstools, and mattresses and pillows. It also sells refrigerators and freezers, washers and dryers, microwaves, dishwashers, cookware, vacuum cleaners, televisions, computers and tablets, home theaters, electronic accessories, desks, bookcases and storage cabinets, office chairs, lamps and lighting, table top accessories, and wall decors. The company was founded in 1904 and is based in Mulberry, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David P. Steffen, Esq. Hannah Choi, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP 100 N Tampa St-Ste 3350 PO Box 1840 Tampa, FL 33601-1840 Telephone: (813) 223 7166 Facsimile: (813) 223 2515 E-mail: dsteffen@constangy.com hchoi@constangy.com WWE NETWORK: Technology Shift May Spur Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Ecumenical News reports that the WWE has already suffered from dipping ratings compounded by the absence of WWE stars as of to date but more trouble could be brewing ahead. With the WWE Network becoming the new channel for watching pay- per-views and old WWE footages, such has sorely affected the sales of DVDs and Blu-rays. With that in mind, revenue resulting from royalties of such have been severely affected. Under the WWE Network, wrestlers are not getting any part of the revenue generated from showing previous and present clips. And with the turn of attention to the WWE Network as far as showcasing such footages, former WWE stars could end up joining together to file a class action suit against the WWE to get their due from the technology shift. In the past, two personalities have tried but failed to seek royalties from the WWE Network -- Doug Summers and Eddie Gilbert. Matches for both have been shown on TV but the two wrestlers were not amply given their share of royalties. As it stands right now, the present scenario could offer something different if the lawsuit does gain ground. The WWE Network has obviously enjoyed earnings from paid subscription of previous and current shows so it seems only common to find wrestlers joining the cause and fight for what they are properly entitled to. The WWE charges monthly subscription fees for customers to gain access to new and old footages and the revenue generated from such alone is something that former stars believe they should be getting. There is no definite number yet on the wrestlers who could come on board and air their cause but the WWE may find itself in more trouble moving forward. Right now, the WWE is gearing up for its major annual offering in Wrestlemania 32. The annual WWE extravaganza is trying to make do with the current crop of stars they have, with most of the mainstays held out due to varying injuries. XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Violated FLSA, "Valverde" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Colorado hotel workers claim in a class action in Denver that a national staffing company and major hotels that relied on them as temporary help routinely cheated them on their paychecks. Isabel Valverde, the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, says Xclusive Staffing and its clients, including Marriott International Inc. and Omni Hotels, failed to pay temporary workers for overtime and made unfair deductions from the workers' paychecks. Valverde says that not only did Xclusive staffing automatically subtract 30 minutes from his hours for lunch breaks he wasn't always allowed to take, but they also charged him $3 per paycheck fee just to have his paycheck issued. In other words, the March 22 complaint says, he and his co-workers had to "pay to get paid." Xclusive Staffing has already had issues with federal and state labor laws. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor found at least five instances in which the company had broken minimum wage and overtime laws, after which, the complaint says, "Xclusive promised to conform." But Valverde says they have failed to clean up their business practices, and that the unwarranted deductions from his paycheck occurred after the federal investigation. The complaint, says that the company's consistent underreporting of employee work hours over the wires constitutes wire fraud -- and that promises on Xclusive's website that it always complies with state and federal minimum wage laws constitutes a "website scheme." Valverde also claims that Xclusive wrongly blames its clients for the wage violations when they are discovered and reported. He asserts that when Labor Department investigators accused Diane Astley, who owns Xclusive, of failing to account for missed lunch breaks on Xclusive's employee's time cards in 2012, Astley blamed their client, Grand Hyatt. But further investigation proved that to be untrue, Valverde says. "Grand Hyatt was only deducting time for lunch breaks for its non- Xclusive employees when the breaks actually taken," the complaint says. "Xclusive was deducting time for lunch breaks regardless of whether the breaks were taken." In addition to class certification Valverde is seeking unspecified damages on claims of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, failure to pay overtime, and breach of contract. Representatives of Xclusive Staffing were not immediately available for comment. The case is, Isabel Valverde; and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc., Xclusive Management, LLC, d.b.a. Xclusive Staffing, Xclusive Staffing Of Colorado, LLC, Diane Astley, Omni Interlocken Company, L.L.C., Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Select Hotels Group, L.L.C. d.b.a. Hyatt House Denver Tech Center, d.b.a. Hyatt Place Denver Tech Center, and Marriott International, Inc. the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00671 (D. Col., March 22, 2016). Xclusive Management specializes in providing staff on a short notice. The Company operates and serves clients 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Xclusive provides already trained personnel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1535 High St., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 239 2606 Facsimile: (303) 957 2289 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org YAHIRO INC: Faces "Guo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage ------------------------------------------------------------ Jianshe Guo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Yahiro Inc. d/b/a The Loop; Raku Restaurant Inc.; Nobutaka Inc. d/b/a Raku--It's Japanese II; and Long Ji Chen, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02014 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Yahiro Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese food restaurant. Raku Restaurant Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese food restaurant. Nobutaka Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese food restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Tory, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.om YAHOO! INC: Faces "Klingensmith" Suit in Ohio Court --------------------------------------------------- Michael Klingensmith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo!, Inc., d/b/a Yahoo! Sports Daily Fantasy, the Defendant, Case No. CV-16-859231 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, February 19, 2016), seeks to recover all monies lost as a result of Yahoo's void gaming contracts, as well as punitive damages. Yahoo!, Inc., is a company operating a Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) website in a manner that violates Ohio law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Abens, Esq. David L. Harvey III, Esq. Matthew B. Abens, Esq. Jason T. Hartzell, Esq. HARVEY ABENS IOSUE CO., LPA 3404 Lorain Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 651 0256 Facsimile: (216) 651 1131 E-mail: dvdharv@harvlaw.com mbabens@harvlaw.com jhartzell@harvlaw.com ZYNGA INC: $23M Securities Class Action Settlement Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco entered a final judgment approving a $23 million class action settlement of claims that video game developer Zynga artificially inflated its share prices. Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold their shares in the company for hundreds of millions of dollars. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered that the settlement be awarded to a class defined as "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga common stock Dec. 15, 2011 to July 25, 2012." Up to 25 percent of the settlement fund -- about $5.7 million -- will go to attorneys' fees. Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiff, told Courthouse News in October 2015 that he expects about 100,000 class claimants. The case captioned, IN RE ZYNGA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC (N.D. Cal.) * Justice Roberts Raises Thresholds for Class Action Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy M. Creelan and Daniel H. Wolf, writing for Law.com, report that in recent years, the Roberts Court has raised the thresholds for class action plaintiffs and other plaintiffs to bring and sustain their claims. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the court announced heightened Rule 8 pleading standards, requiring plaintiffs' claims to rise to a more stringent level of plausibility. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011), the court announced more rigorous standards that made it tougher for plaintiffs to establish commonality and predominance under Rule 23 class certification analysis. And in several recent arbitration cases, the court has sided with defendants and required class action plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims out of court.1 In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the court articulated a concern that underlies many of these decisions -- that "[f]aced with even a small chance of a devastating loss" as a result of these high-impact claims, "defendants will be pressured into settling questionable claims." Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 350. At the start of this Supreme Court term, the court appeared poised to continue this threshold-raising trend, granting defendants' petitions for certiorari in three class action cases: Campbell- Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (whether an unaccepted settlement offer of relief moots the class action); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (whether a named plaintiff has Article III standing based only on the violation of a statutorily created right); and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (whether a class may be maintained where there are uninjured members). During oral argument in all three cases, a majority of the court appeared to lean toward a restrictive approach to class actions, and many commentators expected decisions favoring the defendants in all three. Later during the term, the court granted the defendant's petition for certiorari in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457, another class action case, but the court recently postponed argument in that case until the court's next term, when the court's balance may be substantially different than it was when certiorari was granted. On Jan. 20, 2016, the court issued its first decision in any of these cases. Surprising many court watchers, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Campbell-Ewald and held that an unaccepted settlement offer of full relief does not moot the action. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 666 (2016). Its holding prevents defendants from unilaterally ending the class action through an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment, which the court referred to as a "gambit" in order to avoid class liability. Despite the pro-plaintiff result in Campbell-Ewald, there is an underlying logic to the decision that can be squared with the court's recent class-action opinions raising the threshold requirements faced by plaintiffs. By heightening Rule 23 requirements and limiting which types of claims and class members may be in the class, the court limits plaintiffs' ability to use the "gambit" of unsupported or insufficient allegations to coerce settlements from defendants before such "questionable claims" are truly tested in court. See Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 350. Taken together, Campbell-Ewald and these earlier decisions manifest a consistent goal of maintaining the class action device free from manipulation of the process by either side. Of course, the question remains as to which practices the court views as impermissible procedural "gambits." Whenever it is decided, Microsoft v. Baker, in which the defendant argues that the plaintiffs are engaging in the former type of practice, should shed further light on the court's jurisprudence in this area. "Campbell-Ewald" In March 2010, Jose Gomez sued Campbell-Ewald Company (Campbell), alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of a nationwide class based on unsolicited text messages he received and which had been authorized by Campbell. Campbell eventually offered the plaintiff $1,503 per unsolicited text message and injunctive relief -- together representing the full individual relief available to a plaintiff under the TCPA. Campbell simultaneously filed an offer of judgment with the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which establishes the procedure for the entry of judgment if an opposing party accepts judgment within 14 days of the offer being made. When Gomez did not accept the offer, Campbell moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the offer of complete relief had mooted Gomez's claim and eliminated the case or controversy under Article III. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that holding. See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, 805 F.Supp.2d 923, 931 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, 768 F.3d 871, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2014). On Jan. 20, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision in a five-member opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring in the judgment, and a three-member dissent authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Relying on basic principles of contract law, the court held that Campbell's unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot the case. Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 670. Having declined the defendant's offer, Gomez "remained empty handed," with his complaint "wholly unsatisfied." Id. at 672. Significantly, the court cited to an earlier case in which it had rejected a similar "gambit" by a defendant, noting that in this case Campbell "sought to avoid a potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a thousand-fold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept." Id. In support of its holding, the court noted several appellate court decisions, including last year's U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 199-200 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot plaintiff's case and a district court "should not enter judgment against the defendant if it does not provide complete relief"). The protection Campbell-Ewald offers class action plaintiffs may be largely illusory. Notwithstanding its holding on mootness, the court noted that it was not deciding "whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount," reserving that question "for a case in which it is not hypothetical." Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672. Two recent district court decisions within the Second Circuit have addressed that scenario or a similar one, reaching contrary results. Future case law on this likely recurring scenario will define the practical impact of Campbell-Ewald. "Microsoft v. Baker" On Jan. 15, 2016, the court agreed to review Microsoft v. Baker, a Ninth Circuit decision concerning the ability of plaintiffs to dismiss with prejudice a putative class action complaint voluntarily in order to create a "final judgment" on class certification that is ripe for appellate review. If it is decided in accordance with Campbell-Ewald, how the court resolves Microsoft will hinge on whether a majority of the court's members views the plaintiffs' practice as an impermissible "gambit" or as an acceptable way to obtain timely judicial review of a substantive district court ruling. In late 2005, Microsoft began selling the Xbox 360 video game console. In 2007, a putative class of Xbox owners sued Microsoft, alleging that a design defect in the Xbox scratched their game discs and rendered them permanently unusable. The district court denied class certification, finding that individual issues would predominate under Rule 23(b), in part because only 0.4 percent of Xbox owners reported having experienced the disc-scratching problem, and thus any defect did not uniformly manifest itself in the Xbox. In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litig., No. C07- 1121-JCC, 2009 WL 10219350, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009). The plaintiffs did not appeal. In 2011, a putative class of plaintiffs filed a new action against Microsoft asserting the same claims at issue in the 2005 case but claiming that an intervening Ninth Circuit decision had changed the law. Defendants moved to strike the complaint's class action allegations. Granting defendants' motion, the court adopted a rule from a treatise published by the American Law Institute, which provides that a prior denial of class certification on the same subject matter should be afforded a rebuttable presumption of correctness. The court held that the presumption had not been rebutted, and it struck plaintiffs' class action allegations. Baker v. Microsoft, 851 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1280 (W.D. Wash. 2012). After the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal petition, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case voluntarily with prejudice without any type of settlement. With a final judgment in hand, the plaintiffs appealed as of right to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's argument that the circuit court did not have appellate jurisdiction to consider the case under 28 U.S.C. Sec1291. The court held that because the parties' stipulated dismissal of the action did not include any type of settlement, the parties "retain[ed] sufficient adversity to sustain an appeal." Baker v. Microsoft, 797 F.3d 607, 612 (9th Cir. 2015). The court then reversed the district court's decision to strike the class allegations, holding that the lower court had misinterpreted the intervening Ninth Circuit opinion regarding class certification. Id. at 615. Petitioning to the Supreme Court, Microsoft appealed only the jurisdictional holding, presenting a single question for review: "Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice." Microsoft relied upon Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), in which the Supreme Court held that interlocutory review of the denial of class certification is discretionary. In that case, the court rejected the "death knell" doctrine, in which several circuits had held that interlocutory review of class certification denial was mandatory if such a denial was tantamount to the "death knell" of plaintiffs' case. In its petition, Microsoft argued that the plaintiffs' "voluntary dismissal tactic" was an end run around Coopers & Lybrand, and that there was neither jurisdiction nor a case or controversy sufficient to support appellate review. Microsoft suggested that the court should review the case in part because there was a 5-2 circuit split against this tactic. It noted that the Second Circuit was in the minority of courts allowing the tactic, citing Gary Plastic Packaging v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 903 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1990). In their opposition brief, the plaintiffs argued that there had been no denial of class certification; rather, the district court had struck the class allegations from the complaint. The plaintiffs also deemed the circuit split "illusory." On Jan. 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted Microsoft's petition for certiorari. The court stated it would consider: "Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice." Although the court initially agreed to hear the case in its current term, it recently announced that argument would be postponed until the following term. The nomination and confirmation of a justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who has consistently voted for the interests of class-action defendants, could have a substantial effect on the outcome of Microsoft v. Baker. Acceptable Gambit? Microsoft's petition repeatedly refers to the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal and appeal as a "tactic," evoking the type of gaming of the system the court has recently rejected. Citing to the court's concern with defendants being pressured into settlements articulated in Concepcion, Microsoft referred to the plaintiffs' conduct as a "one-way ratchet [that] distorts litigation and settlement incentives." One amicus brief laid out the perceived manipulation in even clearer terms, calling it a "one-way street for opportunistic plaintiffs looking to force defendants into high-dollar settlement through multiple appeals despite the existence of a meritorious defense." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, addressing the practice in the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action context, deemed it a "procedural sleight-of-hand to bring about finality" and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239, 245-46 (3d Cir. 2013). As the parties' briefs note, the Second Circuit in Gary Plastic allowed appellate review of a class certification denial after the named plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for failure to prosecute - - a holding that would support the plaintiffs' position in Microsoft v. Baker. In fact, there appear to be several recent instances in which plaintiffs within the Second Circuit appealed class certification denials following voluntary dismissal of their claims. The plaintiffs in Microsoft v. Baker may look to Gary Plastic for ways to frame their approach as a valid use of class action procedure to obtain a review of a substantive decision by the district court on their claims. In Gary Plastic, the Second Circuit held that the concerns the Supreme Court had with the "death knell" doctrine -- such as the discretionary nature of courts "formulating an appealability rule" and the "waste of judicial resources" in determining when the denial of class certification was the "death knell" of the plaintiffs' action, among others -- were not present where the named plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice. Under this view, the plaintiffs' dismissal of their individual claims with prejudice and subsequent appeal is a straightforward review of a final order. Even if a "gambit," it is only available to named plaintiffs "who risk forfeiting their potentially meritorious individual claims," Gary Plastic, 903 F.2d at 179. Moreover, given the impracticality of taking individual plaintiffs' claims, which may be for very small amounts of money, all the way to summary judgment or trial, the Supreme Court may find it an acceptable gambit. Conclusion However Microsoft v. Baker is resolved, the court's decision will speak to whether the underlying logic to this body of law will continue with a focus on preventing parties from short-circuiting the consideration of sound class action claims or sustaining weak claims beyond the case's earliest stages. And whoever the new justice appointed to the court may be, and whenever that appointment may come to pass, that justice may have a heavy influence on the underlying balance between these two objectives. By the end of the court's next term, we will have a clearer picture of which practices are improper gambits and which are valid efforts to sustain a party's "day in court." * Tobacco Cos. Can Face Punitive Damages in Individual Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that tobacco companies can be held liable for punitive damages in individual smoker cases that stemmed from a disbanded statewide class action, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on March 17. Lower-level appellate courts split on the issue of whether members of the defunct Engle class and their survivors could pursue punitive damages on negligence or strict liability theories after the class was eliminated in 2006. "The procedural posture of the case changed entirely when this court vacated the entire punitive damages award of $145 billion and the related findings on punitive damages, thus wiping the slate clean as it relates to punitive damages and requiring each individual plaintiff to prove entitlement to punitive damages in his or her individual lawsuit," Justice Barbara Pariente wrote in the unanimous opinion. The legal standard for establishing entitlement to punitive damages does not vary depending on the underlying legal theory, the court added. The opinion approved the Second District Court of Appeal's approach and rejected the reasoning used by the First, Third and Fourth DCAs. To be covered by the Engle class findings accepted as the law of the case, plaintiffs must show their smoking-related disease manifested itself before Nov. 21, 1996. Findings of product defect, negligence, fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to conceal were established as a matter of law. The case before the court was filed by Lucille Soffer, whose husband died of lung cancer in 1992. She filed a wrongful death action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and sought punitive damages. R.J. Reynolds argued punitive damages could be considered only on the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy counts based on the procedural posture, or case history, of the original Engle class action. The trial court agreed, as did the First DCA. The district court reasoned the decision disbanding the class action "did not suggest plaintiffs could bring other claims and remedies that had not been timely asserted as part of the Engle litigation," according to Justice Pariente's opinion. The high court said that conclusion was flawed. Instead, the justices agreed with the Second DCA's reasoning: If the court wanted to prevent punitive damages claims by the so- called Engle progeny plaintiffs, it would have stated as much. After all, the court was specific about which findings would fall under res judicata, meaning the issues had been decided and the same parties could not argue them further. "Our decision in Engle specifically set forth those findings to which res judicata applies; nothing within our decision expanded the res judicata effect to the ability to pursue the remedy of punitive damages," Justice Pariente wrote. Ms. Soffer's attorneys were thrilled with the decision, which came 15 months after oral argument. "It changes everything for plaintiffs," said Dawn Vallejos-Nichols of Avera & Smith in Gainesville, who represented Ms. Soffer. "It makes them be able to plead punitive damages on all of their counts." Ms. Vallejos-Nichols said she was pleased the court rejected R.J. Reynolds' argument that the original Engle decision prevented punitive damages on unintentional torts. ********* 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 * * *