/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 100 Headlines 21VIANET GROUP: Says Shareholder Action at Preliminary Stage 3JT ENTERPRISES: Initial Status Conference Set for June 28 4 FRENDZ: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Under-Processing ADRIAN ROQUE: "Vara" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ADT CORPORATION: Faces Investors Suit Over Prime Security Merger ADVANCE STORES: "Bradix" Suit Moved to E.D. La. ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Vazquez" Suit AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Meat And Poultry Products ALASKA AIR: "Zwang" Suit Seeks to Block Virgin America Acquisition ALEXANDER COUNTY: Housing Authority Sued in S.D. Ill. ALIAGED DINING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in E.D.N.Y. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defends Anti-Steering Rules Litigation AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed ANTHEM HEALTH: Dismissal of Psychiatric Assoc. Claims Affirmed API TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Stockholders' Suit ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio, Others in Contempt of Court, Judge Says AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Ellison" Suit BA CREDIT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Launched in Cardholder Suit BLACKBOARD INC: Sued in Ill. Over Automated Telephone Call BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Allen" Sues Over Pradaxa Side Effects BON-TON DISTRIBUTION: Betty Ratulowski Seeks Class Certification BP LPC: Mondrian Fund Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Final Allocation Order Entered CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Greenberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y. CHEMIX ENERGY: McGarry Seeks Conditional Class Certification CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CODE REBEL: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over False Financial Results CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Facing Retirees and Union Action CORDELL RESTAURANT: "Thackston" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA COREPOWER YOGA: "Osterholt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Defending Suit by Consumer Protection Office CPFL ENERGIA: Defending Suit by Public Attorney of Caxias do Sul CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Action in Delaware CSX CORPORATION: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case CV SCIENCES: Still Defends "Sallustro" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. DA SILVANO CORP: Faces "Bermeo" Suit in S.D.N.Y. DEMI AG INC: Pays Workers Minimum Wage, Calif. Suit Claims DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over False Financial Status DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd DJO FINANCE: Still Defending Pain Pump Litigation in U.S., Canada DURATA THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Hearing Taken Off Calendar ECOLAB INC: Certification of Class of Route Sales Managers Sought EL DORADO HOME: Wins Conditional Certification of Three Classes ENI SPA: Trial in Class Action v. Saipem at Early Stages ENNISH CONSTRUCTION: "Zapata" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under NYLL EPIC SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in "Long" Suit EPIC SYSTEMS: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Long" Suit EXPRESS COURIER: Class Certification Sought in "Harris" Suit FACEBOOK INC: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit in Del. FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Ap-Fonden" Class Action in Del. FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Share Issuance FAMILY SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in "D'Arezzo" Suit FIRST RATE: "Njoroge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Relief FITLIFE BRANDS: Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal FRENCH CREEK: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA FWC FUNDING: Faces "Harmon" Suit in C.D. Cal. GABRIEL ANTMAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6 GARLAND VENTURES: Recalls Chicken Fried Rice Products GEOPARK LIMITED: Brasil Unit Defending Class Action GOLD FIELDS: Judgment on Class Certification Bid Reserved GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bid for Certification of 2 Classes Denied GUESS? INC: $5.25MM "Isaguirre" Case Settlement Approved H & S AUTO: "Samarasinghe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA HCSB FINANCIAL: Deposited Settlement Sum as Appeal Period Expires HEARTLAND PAYMENT: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action HERTZ RENTAL: Dismissal of 4th Amended Complaint Sought HILTON HOTELS: Sued in D.C. Over Employee Retirement Plan HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Paz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. IDAHO: DOJ Supports Criminal Defendants' Right to Sue IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Valdo Sulaj Seeks Certification of FLSA Class INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland Cty. Fund Suit Moved to Arizona KIDRON CORPORATE: Sued in N.Y. Over Transperfect Dissolution KOOS MANUFACTURING: "Bernal" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code KRAFT FOODS: 6th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Starbucks Coffee Pods LA AUTENTICA: Recalls Meat Tamale Products Due to Listeria LAVIAN LTD: Faces "Williams" Class Action in Calif. LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed LE CREUSET: Faces "Shapiro" Consumer Class Action in Calif. LYFT: Agrees to Pay $27-Mil. to Resolve Calif. Drivers' Suit LIVING ASSISTANCE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Recorded Call LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity in Herbal Supplements Case MEDBOX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held on May 16 MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in D.N.J. MERCY HEALTH: Sued in W.D. Okla. Over Pension Plan MERLEX STUCCO: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Stucco Product METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Owens" Class Action METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in "Robainas" Action METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending METROPOLITAN LIFE: Order in "Fauley" Case Affirmed METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Class Action in Calif. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Martin" Class Action in Calif. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Lau" Class Action in New York MIDATECH PHARMA: Class Suit Over DARA BioScience Deal Dropped MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Genova" Suit in D.N.J. MILLER AND STEENO: Class Certification Sought in "Strader" Suit MISSION HOSPITAL: EEOC Sues Over Civil Rights Breach MONTEREY FINANCIAL: "Brinkley" Suit Moved to S.D. California MT. FUJI: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NEW YORK: Governor, et al. Faces "Trowbridge" Class Action NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Automated Text Messaging NEWLINK GENETICS: Investors File Class Suit in Manhattan NEWPORT CORPORATION: Facing Class Actions Over MKS Merger OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: "Lohman" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Cotner" Suit OLLIES 42ND: "Rong" Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages OOMA INC: Faces Class Actions Related to 2015 IPO PELLA CORPORATION: "Zeigler" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514 PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Apel" Class Action in Calif. PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Choonoo" Suit in D.N.J. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Sperber" Suit in E.D.N.Y. PROMOSYNTHESIS LLC: "Henryhand" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code PROVIDENCE CENTER: Certification of Class of Therapists Sought QUALITY POLE: "Villalongo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA RADNET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kavanagh" Class Suit in Calif. Ct. RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Etienne" Suit in E.D.N.Y. RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D.N.Y. RBC CAPITAL: Defending Against Investor Suits in N.Y., Quebec RESONANT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated 2nd Amended Suit RJ REYNOLDS: $4.75-Mil. Settlement in "Sateriale" Approved ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Securities Antitrust Litigation ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Case ROYAL CANIN: Bid for Certification of Class Denied as Moot SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in D. Vermont SENIORSITTERS INC: "Schreckengost" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA SHELL OIL: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Certiorari Already Due SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Tapia" Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Appeal in Delaware Remains Pending SKY CHEFS: "Donnelly" Suit Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code SPARK ENERGY: Defending Against "Melville" Class Action SPARK ENERGY: June 3 Hearing on "Amaya" Class Certification Bid SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defending "Marchelos" Complaint in E.D.N.Y. SPOKEO INC: Split Supreme Court Rejects "Robins" FCRA Appeal STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for July 14 SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "Rosen" Suit in D.N.J. SUNRUN INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit Over False Registration Statements TAILORED BRANDS: Still Defends Lucas-Salerno Class Suit TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Providing Indemnity in "Mathews" Case U S BANK: "Anderson" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit in E.D.N.Y. UNITED STUDENT FUNDS: High Court Won't Hear Student-Loan Case WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Sheppard" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA WHOLE FOODS: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Bait & Switch Scheme ********* 21VIANET GROUP: Says Shareholder Action at Preliminary Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ 21Vianet Group, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a shareholder class action lawsuit remains at its preliminary stages. The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit against our company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Singh v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00894 (E.D. Tex.) (the "Singh Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On September 17, 2014, another putative shareholder class action against our company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Sun v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-2677 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Sun Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case allege that public filings, press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures made by our company during the alleged class period contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and that such public filings, press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's ADSs. The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case state that plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from April 21, 2011 to September 10, 2014, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2013)." "On October 1, 2014, the Sun Case was transferred upon plaintiff's request to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On November 12 and 13, 2014, two alleged shareholders of our company, respectively filed motions requesting the court to consolidate the two putative shareholder class action lawsuits and appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs. "The action remain[s] at its preliminary stages. We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously." The Company is a carrier-neutral internet data center services provider in China. 3JT ENTERPRISES: Initial Status Conference Set for June 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 12, 2016, in the case entitled ARcare, Inc. v. 3JT Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04663 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued; -- the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay ruling; -- the initial status conference in this matter is set for June 28, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; -- the parties are directed to review the procedures and requirements for this conference on Judge Ellis' Web site and to submit the required Initial Status Report by June 21. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=amTp8sDP 4 FRENDZ: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Under-Processing ------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Frendz, LLC., a Clarkston, Wash. establishment, is recalling approximately 497 pounds of beef jerky products due to under- processing and potential survival of bacterial pathogens in the products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The items were produced from Aug. 10, 2015 to April 11, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE MESQUITE PEPPER JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16- 1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16." --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE HONEY JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17 a and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16." --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE MESQUITE JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16." --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE TERIYAKI JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16." --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE HOT HONEY JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16- 1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. M22017" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in Idaho and Washington. The problem was discovered during a comprehensive FSIS Food Safety Assessment (FSA) inspection performed in the establishment by an FSIS Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact Art King, Managing Partner, at (509)-751-9888. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. ADRIAN ROQUE: "Vara" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Juan F. Vara and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adrian Roque, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21646-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is an owner and/or manager of a business who ran the day-to-day operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ADT CORPORATION: Faces Investors Suit Over Prime Security Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- The ADT Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2016, that two purported stockholders filed putative class action complaints related to a proposed merger with Prime Security. On February 14, 2016, The ADT Corporation ("ADT") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Prime Security Services Borrower, LLC ("Parent"), Prime Security One MS, Inc. ("Merger Sub") and, solely for purposes of Article IX thereof, Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and Prime Security Services TopCo Parent, L.P., pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into ADT (the "Merger"), with ADT surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. As disclosed in ADT's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the "definitive proxy statement"), purported stockholders of ADT have initiated legal actions challenging the Merger. From February 24, 2016 through March 10, 2016, four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Florida Actions"). The complaints in the Florida Actions include claims, among others, for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, alleging that the ADT directors violated the duties of loyalty, good faith, due care, and/or disclosure owed to ADT stockholders. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in each of the Florida Actions filed notices voluntarily dismissing each of those actions. On March 24, 2016 and April 4, 2016, two purported stockholders filed putative class action complaints, respectively styled MSS 12-09 Trust v. Thomas Colligan, et al., Case No. 12133 and Peter Roy v. The ADT Corporation, et al., Case No 12160 (the "Delaware Actions"), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual ADT directors. Plaintiffs seek an order finding the directors liable for breaching their fiduciary duties based on the claim that the definitive proxy statement fails to disclose certain allegedly material information necessary to permit ADT stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the proposed merger transaction. Plaintiff Peter Roy also filed motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. ADT believes that the Florida Actions and the Delaware Actions are without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the definitive proxy statement under applicable laws. However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, ADT has determined to make certain supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement as set forth below. Plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions have agreed to withdraw and / or agreed not to file motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction in connection with the filing of these supplemental disclosures. Nothing in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. ADT and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Florida Actions or the Delaware Actions. ADVANCE STORES: "Bradix" Suit Moved to E.D. La. ----------------------------------------------- Walter Bradix IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Advance Stores Company, Incorporated, doing business as Advance Auto Parts, the Defendant, Case No. 16-03839, was removed from Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Louisiana (New Orleans). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04902 to the proceeding. Advance Stores wholesales and retails automotive parts and maintenance items. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Tyler J. Rench, Esq. JONES WALKER (NEW ORLEANS) Place St. Charles 201 St. Charles Ave., 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582 8336 E-mail: trench@joneswalker.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Vazquez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTY VAZQUEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK, an Illinois Non-profit Corporation, and EHS HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC., d/b/a ADVOCATE AT HOME AND ADVOCATE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, an Illinois Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill.) asks the Court to: (1) order conditional certification of the Action as a representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Section 216(b) of the Labor Code, on behalf of all home health infusion and pediatric nurses ("Infusion RNs") who were paid on a hybrid "per visit" and hourly basis, were not paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and who worked for the Defendants dating back three (3) years from the date of notice until the present; (2) order court-facilitated notice of the Action to the FLSA Class in the proposed form; (3) order the Defendants to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and dates of birth of the FLSA Class; and (4) authorize the Plaintiffs to send notice, at their expense, by U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to the lawsuit. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PBEMOOy The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Meat And Poultry Products ---------------------------------------------------- Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., with establishments in Fort Worth, Texas; Los Angeles, Calif.; Carthage, Mo.; and Portland, Ore., is recalling approximately 47,112,256 pounds of not-ready-to-eat meat and poultry products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable meat and poultry items were produced on various dates between May 1, 2014 and May 1, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 14.2-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 01/02/2015 to 10/27/2017. --- 14.2-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Pepper Beef" with best-by dates ranging from 11/02/2015 to 10/19/2017. --- 12-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Combination Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 11/06/2015 to 10/27/2017. --- 12-lb cases containing 32-oz packages of "Fred's Jalape¤o, Corn & Bacon Cornbread Pop" with product code 0945137. --- 2-lb boxes containing "InnovASIAN Cuisine CHICKEN FRIED RICE" with best-by dates ranging from 5/15/2015 to 4/09/2017. --- 20-oz packages containing "Trader Joe's Chicken Fried Rice" with case codes ranging from 261231 to 281211. --- 18-oz. bags containing "InnovASIAN Cuisine CHICKEN FRIED RICE" with best-by dates ranging from 05/01/2015 to 04/29/2017. --- 18-oz. and 24-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Orange Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 5/12/2015 to 3/18/2017. --- 20-oz. packages containing "HyVee chicken fried rice" with best-by dates ranging from 7/11/2015 to 3/03/2017. --- 20-oz. packages containing "First Street Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 7/11/2015 to 3/15/2017. --- 54-oz. packages containing "Yakitori Chicken with Japanese- Style Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 6/28/2015 to 5/2/2017. --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 8/11/2015 to 3/18/2017. --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Hibachi Seasoned Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 8/11/2015 to 11/16/2016. --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Spicy Hibachi Seasoned Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 8/13/2015 to 11/16/2016. --- 18-oz. and 24-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai General Tso's Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 8/18/2015 to 12/26/2016. --- 1.53-kg packages containing "Arroz Frito Estilo Japones Con Pollo Yakitori" with best-by dates ranging from 1/22/2016 to 1/03/2017, exported to Mexico. --- 1.53-kg packages containing "Yakitori Chicken with Japanese-Style Fried Rice (Poulet Yakitori Avec Riz Frit A La Japonaise)" with best-by dates ranging from 1/21/2016 to 3/7/2017, exported to Canada. --- 30-oz. packages containing "Daily Chef Chicken Poblano Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 8/10/2015 to 1/25/2016. --- 12.5-lbs packages containing "Golden Tiger SANTA FE BRAND CHICKEN EGG ROLLS" with packaging dates between 8/22/2014 to 11/6/2015. --- 6.25-lb packages cases containing "Jade Mountain SOUTHWEST CHICKEN EGG ROLL TWISTS" with packaging dates between 6/3/2014 to 3/23/2016. --- 30-oz packages containing 30 pieces of "Petite Cuisine CHICKEN POBLANO Hand Made Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 7/15/2014 to 1/15/2016. --- 6.25-lbs. cases containing "Golden Tiger Firecracker Southwest Brand Chicken" with packaging dates between 6/2/2014 to 3/23/2016. --- 7.5-lbs. packages containing "Posada Southwest Brand CHICKEN EMPANADA" with packaging dates between 5/12/2014 to 3/8/2016. --- 8-oz packages containing 8 pieces of "The Original Appetizer Company CHICKEN POBLANO Handmade Appetizers (Firecracker) with packaging date of 11/4/2014. --- 30-oz packages containing 30 pieces of "Petite Cuisine SOUTHWEST CHICKEN Handmade Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 10/9/2014 to 11/6/2014. --- 8-oz packages containing 8 pieces of "Taste of Inspirations Chicken Poblano Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 8/12/2015 to 2/26/2016. --- 6.89 kg. cases containing packages of "Golden Tiger SOUTHWEST SPICY CHICKEN SPRING ROLLS" with packaging dates between 5/7/2014 to 3/31/2016. --- 8-oz. packages containing "archer farms Chicken Poblano Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 7/15/2014 to 3/21/2016. --- 1.15-kg packages of "Molly's Kitchen Mini Chicken Pot Pie Empanadas" with packaging dates between 6/4/2014 to 1/7/2015. --- 7.5-lb packages of "CASA SOLANA SOUTHWEST BRAND CHICKEN EMPANADA MADE IN CALIFORNIA" with packaging dates between 11/4/2014 to 2/16/2016. --- 15-lbs packages of "Perkins SOUTHWEST STYLE CRISPY ROLL" with a packaging date of 3/11/2015 and date code 5255070. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 21225," "EST. 9281," "EST. 1623A" or "EST. 18356" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped nationwide and to Canada and Mexico. The problem was discovered when Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. was notified by CRF Frozen Foods that its frozen vegetables used in Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. products were involved in a recall. CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco, Washington voluntarily recalled frozen fruit and vegetable items due to an illness outbreak of listeriosis. There have been no confirmed reports of illness or adverse reactions due to consumption of Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.'s products. The CRF Frozen Foods' recall can be found at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm498841.htm. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Members of the media with questions regarding the recall can contact Paul Taylor, Ajinomoto Windsor's General Counsel, at 909- 477-4800. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.'s Consumer Affairs at (855) 742- 5011. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. ALASKA AIR: "Zwang" Suit Seeks to Block Virgin America Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Zwang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C. David Cush, Donald J. Carty, Samuel K. Skinner, Cyrus F. Freidheim, Jr., Stephen C. Freidheim, Evan M. Lovell, Robert A. Nickell, John R. Rapaport, Stacy J. Smith, Jennifer L. Vogel, Paul D. Wachter, Alaska Air Group, Inc., Alpine Acquisition Corp., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV538604 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of Virgin America Inc. at an unfair price through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of Alaska Airlines (proposed acquisition). According the complaint, on April 4, 2016, Defendants issued a press release announcing that the Board had agreed to sell Virgin America to Alaska Airlines. Alaska Airlines will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Virgin America for $ 57 per share in cash (proposed consideration), in a transaction valued at approximately $4 billion. The proposed acquisition undervalues Virgin America and is marred with preclusive deal protections that effectively prevent Virgin America from receiving a superior offer. Alaska Air is an airline holding company based in SeaTac, Washington. It owns two certificated airlines operating in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, 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 soddo@robbinsarroyo.com ALEXANDER COUNTY: Housing Authority Sued in S.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Alexander County Housing Authority. The case is captioned Paul Lambert, Mary Holder, William Frey, Pamela Purdiman, Shameka Nelson, and Kimberly Simelton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Alexander County Housing Authority, an Illinois municipal corporation, and James Wilson, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00513-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., May 10, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael J. Reagan. Alexander County is a county located in the U.S. state of North Carolina. As of the 2010 census, the population was 37,198. Its county seat is Taylorsville. Housing Authority provides safe decent sanitary affordable housing for low and very-low income families, the elderly and persons with disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Hughes Socol et al. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 604-2636 Facsimile: (312) 604-2637 E-mail: cwilmes@hsplegal.com ALIAGED DINING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Aliaged Dining, Inc. The case is captioned Jose Aguilar and Jose Pinto, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Aliaged Dining, Inc., doing business as Aged Restaurant & Bar; A & A Food Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Aged Restaurant & Bar; Puneet P. Singh, also known as aka Paul Singh; Akbarali B. Himani, also known as aka Mike Himani; and Bruno Musthafa Babaci, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02369 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Aliaged Dining is a modern, American cuisine located in the heart of Forest Hills, with a selection of steaks, seafood and paired with lovely wines. The Plaintiff appears pro se. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defends Anti-Steering Rules Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that American Express Company is vigorously defending against those claims in the case, In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation. In 2010, the Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against American Express Company, MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "DOJ case"). The complaint included allegations that provisions in the Company's merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from steering a customer to use another network's card or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non- discrimination" contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws. The complaint sought a judgment permanently enjoining the Company from enforcing its non-discrimination contractual provisions. The complaint did not seek monetary damages. Following a non-jury trial in the DOJ case, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and on April 30, 2015, the court issued a final judgment entering a permanent injunction. Following the Company's appeal of this judgment, on December 18, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed the trial court's judgment as well as related matters before the trial court pending the issuance of its appellate decision. In addition to the DOJ case, individual merchant cases and a putative class action, collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging that its anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws. The individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. These matters, including a trial previously scheduled in the individual merchant cases, have been stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the DOJ case. Individual merchants have initiated arbitration proceedings raising similar claims concerning the anti-steering provisions in the Company's card acceptance agreements and seeking damages. The Company is vigorously defending against those claims. "Marcus" Case to Proceed After DOJ Appeal American Express Credit Account Master Trust also disclosed that further proceedings in the case by Marcus Corporation are anticipated after resolution of the appeal in the DOJ case. In July 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2013, the Company announced a proposed settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class action challenging its anti-steering provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 4, 2015, the court denied final approval of the settlement; further proceedings are anticipated after resolution of the appeal in the DOJ case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 11, 2016, in the case entitled Amy Mauer v. American Intercontinental University, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01473 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis. The minute entry states that pursuant to a stipulation, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is dismissed without prejudice. The status date set for May 11, 2016, is stricken and reset to September 8, 2016, for ruling on motions to dismiss. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SozO2Cwb ANTHEM HEALTH: Dismissal of Psychiatric Assoc. Claims Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that psychiatrists celebrated the Second Circuit's "watershed" decision last year opening insurers to liability for discriminating against mental health treatment, but a new ruling shows the floodgates are not open to all plaintiffs. On May 13, the federal appeals court affirmed dismissal of similar claims by the American Psychiatric Association. Along with related trade groups and doctors, the APA had accused Anthem and its subsidiary Wellpoint of skimping on mental health and substance-abuse care. The lawsuit, filed three years ago in Connecticut, quoted remarks to Congress by U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, when introducing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. "Access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the nation," the Rhode Island Democrat had said. "For too long, persons living with mental disorders have suffered discriminatory treatment at all levels of society." The Mental Health Parity Act sought to ensure comparable coverage for mental and physical illnesses, but psychiatric associations say the statute suffers from lax enforcement. When the Second Circuit revived a similar class action by the New York State Psychiatric Association against UnitedHealth Group, the group's lawyer hailed it as a "major" ruling that patched a perceived loophole in the statute. NYSPA's success stemmed from the court's finding of "no serious dispute" that the association had standing to sue "in its own right." In affirming dismissal of the APA's case May 13, the Second Circuit found that the group could not sue on behalf of its members and patients. Supreme Court precedent shows the court "cannot expand the congressionally created statutory list of those who may bring a cause of action by importing third-party prudential considerations," the 25-page ruling states. This is so, according to the ruling, despite "policy reasons [that] might support allowing physicians to bring suit on behalf of patients with mental health and substance use disorders in the absence of statutory authorization for such an action." U.S. Circuit Judge Judge John Walker wrote the decision for a three-judge panel. Anthem has not returned a telephone request for comment. The APA's president Renee Binder complained that the ruling would further disenfranchise its patients. "Discrimination against our patients is a pervasive and pressing problem, and we believe it needs to be addressed in a coordinated, systematic fashion," Binder said in an email. "We disagree with this ruling because, it means the patients, who are already disenfranchised, have to fight on a claim-by-claim basis. Psychiatry will continue to advocate for the interests of our patients, explore options for appeal, and implement strategies to end barriers to care." The case is captioned, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, on behalf of its members and their patients, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC., et al. Defendants-Appellees., No. 14-3993-cv (2nd Cir.) API TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Stockholders' Suit --------------------------------------------------- API Technologies Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, that the parties to the pending stockholder class action lawsuits have entered into a memorandum of understanding. On February 28, 2016, API Technologies Corp. (the "Company"), RF1 Holding Company ("Parent") and RF Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly- owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly- owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). In connection with the Merger, three purported class action complaints have been filed on behalf of the stockholders against the Company, members of the board of directors, J.F. Lehman & Company, Parent and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida (the "Circuit Court"). The three complaints are captioned as follows: Smith v. API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA-001988-O (Cir. Ct. Fl.); Marcus v. API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA-002257-O (Cir. Ct. Fl.); and Strougo v. API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA- 002629-O (Cir. Ct. Fl.) (actions filed March 2, 2016, March 14, 2016, and March 24, 2016, respectively, and collectively, the "Stockholder Actions"). In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, API Technologies said a motion to consolidate three stockholder class actions is pending. On April 13, 2016, the parties to the Stockholder Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting an agreement in principle to resolve the Stockholder Actions. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the MOU stipulates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the settlement contemplated by the MOU will be submitted to the Circuit Court for approval. If the settlement is finally approved by the Circuit Court, the Stockholder Actions will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures in the Definitive Information Statement on Schedule 14C filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company on March 28, 2016 ("Definitive Information Statement") were inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental disclosures. The settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger. The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain disclosures that supplement and revise those contained in the Definitive Information Statement. API Technologies Corp. designs, develops, and manufactures systems, subsystems, modules, and components for RF microwave, millimeterwave, electromagnetic, power, and security applications, as well as provides electronics manufacturing for technically demanding, high-reliability applications. ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio, Others in Contempt of Court, Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Arizona found Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and three of his top officials in contempt of court on Friday for disobeying orders meant to curtail racial profiling in the sheriff's department. The ruling stems from a 2007 class action against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office claiming officers in the agency racially profiled Latinos and unlawfully detained them during crime-suppression sweeps. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a preliminary injunction in 2011 that prohibited sheriff's officers from illegally targeting Latinos. He followed that up with a court order in 2013, instructing Arpaio and the sheriff's office to take a number of steps to prevent racial profiling. The six-term sheriff has acknowledged violating the judge's orders by letting his officers conduct immigration patrols 18 months after Snow barred them. He also took responsibility for his department's failure to turn over traffic-stop video evidence before trial. May 13 ruling brings an end to a lengthy proceeding that started a year ago when Snow began a series of hearings to determine whether Arpaio and his aides flouted the judge's orders. In his 162-page decision, Snow found that Arpaio and three of his deputies "have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonestly, and bad faith with respect to the plaintiff class and the protection of its rights. They have demonstrated a persistent disregard for the orders of this court, as well as an intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their conduct as they pertain to their obligations to be fair, 'equitable and impartial' with respect to the interests of the plaintiff class." Snow held Arpaio in contempt on three counts and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan in contempt on two counts, and cited retired Chief Brian Sands and Lt. Joe Sousa on one count each. Although Arpaio has maintained that his violations were not willful, the judge found that Arpaio's contempt "was both knowing and intentional." Snow based his ruling on the violation of three instructions: not turning over video evidence that had been required before the racial-profiling trial; continuing to enforce an immigration law the judge had banned; and Sheridan's failure to quietly collect evidence after the trial, as ordered by Snow. Snow said that Arpaio "knowingly ignored the court's order because he believed that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his enforcement of immigration laws." In 2011, immediately after the judge had issued the preliminary injunction, Arpaio issued a statement saying, "I will continue to enforce illegal immigration laws." Three months later, the sheriff's department issued another statement saying, "Arpaio remains adamant about the fact that his office will continue to enforce both state and federal illegal immigrations laws as long as the laws are on the books." These statements indicate that Arpaio was aware of the preliminary injunction but nevertheless continued to enforce all federal immigration laws, Snow said. The sheriff department's Human Smuggling Unit violated the preliminary injunction by continuing to arrest, detain and transport immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol when it could not charge them for committing any state or federal crime. Officers "used race as one factor among others in determining whom it would stop" and "detained persons for unreasonable periods of time to investigate their immigration status," Snow said. At least 157 people were turned over to ICE or Border Patrol as a result of the unit's street-interdiction operations after the injunction was issued, the judge said. When those who were targeted complained about their treatment, the department failed to conduct a thorough investigation and let officers remain in control of investigations in which they themselves had conflicts, Snow said. "Ultimately, few persons were investigated; even fewer were disciplined. The discipline imposed was inadequate. The only person who received a suspension --for one week --was also granted a raise and a promotion," the judge said. When it came to evidence for the trial, the sheriff's office withheld documents they were obligated to produce and lied about the existence of the documents in an attempt to justify their concealment, Snow said. In addition, Arpaio and Sheridan "made multiple intentional misstatements of fact while under oath" during the evidentiary hearing, the judge said. Arpaio and his office face a range of potential sanctions, including fines, restitution for those who were illegally detained during the prohibited immigration patrols, and tighter oversight of daily operations. The judge set a hearing for May 31 on the possible penalties. He noted that the court will at that time "determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt." Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said that Arpaio's "recalcitrance ends here." "Strong remedies are needed to protect the community's rights, starting with internal investigations that root out and punish misconduct. Willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply with the law," she said. Arpaio's team of attorneys, including John Masterson, Joseph Popolizio and Justin Ackerman with Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, issued a statement saying they are analyzing the judge's lengthy decision and plan to file a responsive memorandum. "Despite disagreeing with some of the court's findings, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will continue to work the court appointed monitor, the ACLU and plaintiffs to comply with the court's orders, as it has since January 2014," the statement said. The case captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al., Defendants, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.). AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Ellison" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AutoZone, Inc., asks the Court for an order decertifying the class represented by Plaintiffs Jimmy Ellison and Martha Doland in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.). The Court certified a rest break class of more than 20,000 of AutoZone's non-exempt employees in California based on the Plaintiffs' argument that a single written rest break policy was sufficient to create the common questions and answers necessary to try the Case as a class action. The Plaintiffs argued that because AutoZone's rest break policy failed to include the words "or major fraction thereof," AutoZone failed to authorize and permit rest breaks for shifts between 3.5 and 4 hours and between 6 and 8 hours. Michael E. Brewer, Esq., at Littler Mendelson, P.C., in Walnut Creek, California -- mbrewer@littler.com -- contends that the evidence developed has established that there was no company-wide policy or practice, and no common proof that would establish whether AutoZone fail to authorize and permit required rest periods based on the written policy. He notes that an alleged defective written rest break policy does not allow for a common answer at the exclusion of other evidence. Indeed, Mr. Brewer argues, the evidence gathered since certification demonstrates that in practice, class members were authorized and permitted compliant rest breaks. He contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any common method of proving otherwise as there is no record of rest breaks. A hearing to consider the Motion is set for June 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. Trial is set for October 17, 2016. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1jBRi8nE Autozone, Inc. (Ellison and Doland matters) is represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com giskander@littler.com jmann@littler.com - and - Alison J. Cubre, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: acubre@littler.com Autozone, Inc. (Ellison matter only) is represented by: Michael A. Hoffman, Esq. ARENA HOFFMAN, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1414 E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com BA CREDIT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Launched in Cardholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------- BA Credit Card Funding, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the cardholder action have appealed a decision dismissing their state law claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation ("Interchange"), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation ("BAC"), as defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale were unreasonable restraints of trade under the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On October 19, 2012, defendants, including BAC, settled the matter. The settlement provides for, among other things, (i) payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6 billion, allocated proportionately to each defendant based upon loss-sharing agreements; (ii) distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of default interchange across all Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a period of eight consecutive months, which period began on July 29, 2013, which otherwise would have been paid to Visa and MasterCard issuers, including BAC, and which effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time; and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding merchant point of sale practices. The court granted final approval of the class settlement agreement on December 13, 2013. Several class members appealed the court's order approving the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held oral argument on September 28, 2015. On July 28, 2015, certain objectors to the class settlement filed motions asking the district court to vacate or set aside its final judgment approving the settlement, or in the alternative, to grant further discovery, in light of communications between one of MasterCard's former lawyers and one of the lawyers for the class plaintiffs. The defendants and the class plaintiffs filed responses to the motions on August 18, 2015 and the objectors filed replies on September 2, 2015. The court has not set oral argument. Following approval of the class settlement agreement, a number of the class members opted out of the settlement. The cash portion of the settlement was adjusted downwards as a result of these opt outs. As a result of various loss-sharing agreements from the main Interchange litigation, BAC remains liable for any settlement or judgment in opt-out suits where it is not named as a defendant. BAC is currently named as a defendant in one of the opt-out suits brought by merchant class members, as well as in a putative class action filed by cardholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging claims under the Sherman Act and under California state law. All of the opt-out suits filed to date, as well as the cardholder action, have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 18, 2014, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by the merchant class members who opted out of the settlement, and on November 26, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim in the cardholder action, but declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In the cardholder action, the parties moved for reconsideration of the court's November 26, 2014 decision, and on February 26, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion, finding the court had supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing plaintiffs' state law claims, and denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. BLACKBOARD INC: Sued in Ill. Over Automated Telephone Call ---------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Valladares, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Blackboard, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Blackboard Connect, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-06482 (Ill. Chancery Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants' unlawful practice of transmitting unauthorized, automated telephone calls and text messages to individuals' cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated federal law by making unauthorized telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice and transmitting unauthorized, automated text messages to the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the nation (wireless spam). Blackboard provides automated calling services to school districts and other entities throughout the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Allen" Sues Over Pradaxa Side Effects ------------------------------------------------------------ Claude Ray Allen, individually, as next of kin and as personal representative of the estate of Betty Jean Miles-Allen, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Defendants, Case No. HHD- CV-16-6067804-S (Conn. Super., April 28, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs and such other relief for violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act. Plaintiff's Decedent Betty Jean Miles-Allen ingested Pradaxa (R) 75mg twice a day for treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation and allegedly suffered gastrointestinal bleeding as a result. Boehringer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Tel. 203-610-6393 Fax. 203-610-6399 Email: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Tel: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 Email: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BON-TON DISTRIBUTION: Betty Ratulowski Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BETTY RATULOWSKI, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. BON-TON DISTRIBUTION, LLC, doing business as CARSON PIRIE SCOTT; BON-TON STORES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05172 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action, alleging claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, may proceed as a class action against the Defendants. Plaintiff brings the claim on behalf of two classes: (1) The first class consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent text message calls by either of the defendants (d) with respect to whom defendants have no evidence of express consent; and (2) The second class consists of (a) all persons with Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date 3 years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent text message calls by either of the defendants (d) with respect to whom defendants have no evidence of express consent. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WzGDpahG The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 BP LPC: Mondrian Fund Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mondrian Global Equity Fund, L.P., Mondrian International Equity Fund, L.P., Mondrian Focused International Equity Fund, L.P., Mondrian All Countries World Ex-US Equity Fund, L.P., and Mondrian Group Trust, the Plaintiffs, v. BP PLC, BP America Inc., BP Exploration & Production Inc., Anthony B. Hayward, Robert W. Dudley, Carl-Henric Svanberg, and William Castell, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02719, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern Texas District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01307 to the proceeding. The action, brought by four Delaware limited partnerships and ERISA-complaint group trust established under applicable United States ERISA and tax laws, seeks recovery of the purchased BO ordinary shares on the London Stock Exchange during the period of February 7, 2007 through June 25, 2010. BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L Tuccillo, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Jessica Dell, Esq. Marc Gross, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 E-mail: mltuccillo@pomlaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Final Allocation Order Entered ----------------------------------------------- Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennyslvania on May 11, 2016, entered an allocation order in the Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action in the Egg Antitrust Litigation. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 27, 2016, that since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In November 2014, the Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company. On January 29, 2016, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for an order approving their proposed allocation of the Company's net settlement fund to authorized claimants. The Court previously certified this Settlement Class: All persons and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes. (a) Shell Egg SubClass All individuals and entities that purchased Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes. (b) Egg Products SubClass All individuals and entities that purchased Egg Products produced from Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes. Excluded from the Class and SubClasses are Defendants, Other Settling Defendants, and Producers, and the parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendants, Other Settling Defendants, and Producers, all governmental entities, as well as the Court and staff to whom this case is assigned, and any member of the Court's or staffs immediate family. In a Feb. 3, 2016 Order, Judge Pratter certified a class of shell egg purchasers as: All individuals and entities that purchased shell eggs produced from caged birds in the United States directly from Defendants during the Class Period from September 24, 2004 through December 31, 2008. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their co-- conspirators, and their respective parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any government entities. Also excluded from the Class are purchasers of "specialty" shell eggs (such as "organic," "certified organic," "free range," "cage free", "nutritionally enhanced," or "vegetarian fed") and purchasers of hatching eggs, which are used by poultry breeders to produce breeder stock or growing stock for laying hens or meat. These entities were appointed as class representatives: T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant, LLC; John A. Lisciandro d/b/a/Lisciandro's Restaurant; Eby-Brown Company LLC; and Karetas Foods, Inc. These individuals are appointed as class counsel to the shell egg class: Mindee J. Reuben -- mreuben@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman -- ssusman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP. In Monday's Allocation Order, the Court directed the Claims Administrator, Garden City Group, LLC, to allocate the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of expenses authorized under the Settlement Agreement and as approved by the Court, including to the Claims Administrator, and adjustment for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses previously authorized by the Court to the Settlement SubClasses, defined as the members of the Settlement Subclasses who did not timely and validly exclude themselves from the Settlement in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice or as otherwise approved by the Court, as follows: Shell Egg Egg Products Settlement SubClass SubClass SubClass Percentage Allocation 67.76% 32.24% from Settlement Fund Total Amount Claimed $25,058,716,445 $11,920,317,188 by SubClass GCG is directed to make payments from each SubClasses' Individual Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants as follows: Each Authorized Claimant who files a valid, sworn, and timely Claim Form and who submits documents that the Claims Administrator determines are valid proof of purchase and purchase price shall be entitled to a payment from the Individual Settlement Fund(s) for which they are eligible in the amount of approximately 0.04% of their actual purchase price of each Settlement Product, or a total sum of $25, whichever is greater. A copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/0a1BPO CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 27, 2016, that in the Egg Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action, the Court has not ruled on motions for summary judgment. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial. In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20. The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their renewed motion for injunctive class certification. The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages classes. On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Greenberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is captioned Aaron Greenberg and Niche Greenberg, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. Central Credit Services LLC, formerly known as Veldos, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02350 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Central Credit provides collections and customer services to businesses in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CHEMIX ENERGY: McGarry Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHANE MCGARRY and GILBERT CANTU, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. CHEMIX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-0496 (S.D. Tex.), file with the Court their opposed motion for conditional class certification and notice. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class of: All individuals who are employed by or have been employed by Chemix Energy Services, LLC at any time since December 11, 2012 as operators (including operators, operator assistants, chemical operators, and operator/supervisors) who were paid a base salary and a day-rate/job bonus, with no overtime compensation ("Putative Class Members"). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YPje8F59 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has reached a settlement in principal of a shareholder class action complaint and is in the process of exchanging documentation. The Company said, "On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in prior public filings certain material facts about the risks associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014, purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14- cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought." "On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel. "On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.). "Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc. and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending practices and made misleading representations regarding its underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control systems. "In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr. Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC, which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the Class Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants. After the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action, and Long Yi agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as the sole remaining defendant to serve. The case remains stayed pending service of Huichun Qin. "On or about February 4, 2016, the Company, Mr. Levy, Mr. Li and the plaintiffs reached a settlement in principal and are in the process of exchanging documentation. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, CCCR will pay defendants $200,000 cash, plus $25,000 towards the cost of notice to the class, and issue 750,000 CCCR shares to the class. The settlement will be subject to court approval." China Commercial Credit, Inc., is a financial services firm operating in China. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Gonzalez, an individually and on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Citistaff Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1-30., the Defendant, Case No. BC620115 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover civil penalties under Labor Code against Defendant for failure to provide wage statements. CitiStaff provides Human Relations solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis F. Moss, Esq. 15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773 0823 Facsimile: (310) 861 0389 E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com CODE REBEL: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over False Financial Results -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Springer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Code Rebel Corporation, Arben Kryeziu, and Reid Dabney, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 03492 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws, and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, Code Rebel filed on April 14, 2016, a Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, with the Securities Exchange Commission, containing materially false and/or misleading statements which misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, that were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Code Rebel is a software and information technology services (IT) company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Facing Retirees and Union Action -------------------------------------------------- Constellium N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that during the third quarter of 2012, the Group implemented certain plan amendments that had the effect of reducing benefits of the participants in the Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood Retiree Medical and Life Insurance Plan. In February 2013, five Constellium retirees and the United Steelworkers union filed a class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia, alleging that Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC improperly modified retiree health benefits. The Group believes that these claims are unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC had a legal and contractual right to make the applicable modification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CORDELL RESTAURANT: "Thackston" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Thackston, 7545 Spring Lake Dr., Bethesda, MD 20817, and Jana Wilson, 7545 Spring Lake Dr., Bethesda, MD 20817, the Plaintiffs, v. Cordell Restaurant, Associates, LLC, 4922 Cordell Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814; Gabriel Coulon, 3604 Littledale Road, Kensington, MD 20895; Robert Coulon, 17906 Chatterly Terrace, Germantown, Md 20874; and Christopher Sansone, 5276 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, Md 20814, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01395- TDC (D. Md., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Federal and State law and the common law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were paid by Defendants an hourly wage below the required minimum wage of $3.63 and $4.00 in January 2015. In every two-week period, the Plaintiffs were allegedly paid for a lesser number of hours than they actually worked. The Plaintiffs' paychecks reflected zero pay for any given 2-week period, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week in certain pay periods. Cordell Restaurant delivers boutique fine dining experiences for corporate and business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven C. Kahn, Esq. Clifford J. Scharman n, Esq. KAHN & SCHARMAN, LLC 401 E. Jefferson Street, Suite 201 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 455 6462 E-mail: cjscharman@msn.com COREPOWER YOGA: "Osterholt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Zuri Osterholt, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Corepower Yoga, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05089 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, CorePower claims to provide a world class experience for everyone and preaches that its teachers are a huge part of the CorePower experience. However, while CorePower has built a highly successful and profitable business, its teachers are "over-stretched" and not being paid for many of the duties they are required to perform as employees. CorePower fails to compensate its employees for actual hours worked, including for essential and integral job duties such as preparing to teach classes, developing and practicing their sequences, compiling music playlists, communicating with customers, and reading and writing work related e-mails. Power Yoga provides yoga practice services. It offers bootcamp, livelean, lifestyle programs, yogi training, and yoga retreat services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Brian H. Eldridge, Esq. Carter D. Grant, Esq. SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 233 South Wacker Drive Willis Tower-Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 645-7800 Facsimile: (312) 645-7711 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com cgrant@hmelegal.com CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Defending Suit by Consumer Protection Office --------------------------------------------------------------- CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that CPFL Paulista is a defendant in a class action suit commenced by the Consumer Protection Office (Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor) of Campinas in the State of Sao Paulo, seeking to suspend the tariff adjustment authorized by Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica), or ANEEL for 2009. The Company said, "The claim against us was rejected by the court of first instance, but the Consumer Protection Office appealed the decision. The tariff adjustment remains in force until a ruling on appeal is made. We believe that the risk of loss in these proceedings is possible and therefore have not recorded any accounting provision in this respect." CPFL ENERGIA: Defending Suit by Public Attorney of Caxias do Sul ---------------------------------------------------------------- CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is subject to legal proceedings relating to the authorization of certain of our Hydroelectric Power Plants. These proceedings include a class action suit commenced by the office of the Federal Public Attorney of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul, challenging the validity of the environmental license for the Rio das Antas hydroelectric complex and seeking an injunction to prevent construction of the plants. The request for an injunction was denied by the lower court and the appeal court, but confirmation of the appeal court decision has been outstanding since 2012. The Company believes that the likelihood of loss is remote. CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Action in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Cryo-Cell International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed on January 20, 2016, in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company (Case No. 11915- VCG). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and is seeking appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against defendants that a certain provision of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through September 22, 2014 is in violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company believes the litigation is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company's maximum deductible under its Directors and Officers insurance policy for this claim is $500,000. CSX CORPORATION: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------ CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue. In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing is expected to occur later this year. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that particular period. CV SCIENCES: Still Defends "Sallustro" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit filed by Tanya Sallustro. On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 --reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief is due April 25, 2016. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time. DA SILVANO CORP: Faces "Bermeo" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Da Silvano Corp. The case is captioned Edgar Bermeo, Hidajet Krasniqi, Rodolfo Aparicio, Juan Cortez, Carlos Mayancela, Javier Molina, Wilson Rojas, Angel Romero, and Marco Solorzano, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Da Silvano Corp., doing business as Da Silvano Restaurant, and Silvano Marchetto, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03491 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Da Silvano is one of New York City's Italian restaurants located on the border of the West Village and SoHo. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. DEMI AG INC: Pays Workers Minimum Wage, Calif. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Demi Ag Inc. pays workers 32 cents per raisin tray, which is less than minimum wages, 14 Latino farmworkers say in a federal class action in Fresno, Calif. DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over False Financial Status ----------------------------------------------------------- James Ranson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Stefan Krause, Juergen Fitschen, Anshuman Jain, John Cryan, and Marcus Schenc, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03495 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank has serious and systemic failings in its controls against financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding against international sanctions, and committing financial crimes; (2) Deutsche Bank's internal control over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (3) as a result, Deutsche Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading. Defendant Deutsche Bank provides investment, financial, and related products and services worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Carl J. Barbier granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled PEDRO LEON v. DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-06301-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.). The Action is brought by Mr. Leon on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages for work he performed for the Defendants. Judge Barbier also ordered that that Notice will be sent to the following: "All individuals who worked or are working for Diversified Concrete, LLC, during the previous three years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207, and who did not receive full overtime compensation." The Court further ordered that the Defendants will have 14 days from the entry of the Order to produce the full names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs. The time period within which potential opt-in plaintiffs may opt-in is 90 days. The 90-day opt-in period will begin to run on the date that the Defendants provide a complete list of the names, dates of employment, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pevga05z DJO FINANCE: Still Defending Pain Pump Litigation in U.S., Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------- DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is currently a defendant in one U.S. case and a lawsuit in Canada related to Pain Pump Litigation which has been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants. The Company said, "Over the past 9 years, we were named in numerous product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving our prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently are a defendant in one U.S. case and a lawsuit in Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45 claimants." "We discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009. These cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. Except for the payment by the Company of policy deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive damages and off-label promotion. We have engaged in settlement discussions with the Canadian plaintiffs and have reached an agreement in principal to settle these claims with a payment in the first quarter of 2017 in an amount that is covered in part by the remaining limits under the insurance policy for the applicable reporting period, with the balance to be paid by the Company, which amount is not material to the Company's financial position or the results of its operations." DURATA THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Hearing Taken Off Calendar ------------------------------------------------------ Allergan Plc said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that the court has taken the May 16, 2016 hearing off the Court's calendar in the case, In re Durata Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10222-VCL. On March 16, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") entered an order, pursuant to a stipulation, dismissing with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only the action entitled In re Durata Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10222-VCL, in which certain stockholders of Durata Therapeutics, Inc. ("Durata") had asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the former directors of Durata and aiding and abetting those breaches of fiduciary against Durata and W.C. Holding, Inc. and Delaware Merger Sub, Inc., two subsidiaries of Allergan plc, in connection with the acquisition of Durata by Allergan, which at the time was known as Actavis plc. The claims had been asserted on behalf of a purported class of all stockholders of Durata excluding the defendants and their relatives, representatives and affiliates (the "Proposed Class"), but the Court made no ruling on certification of the Proposed Class, and any claims of members of the Proposed Class (other than the named plaintiffs) were dismissed without prejudice. The Court set a hearing on May 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., in the New Castle County Courthouse, located at 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, for consideration of an anticipated application by plaintiffs in this action and similar actions filed in Illinois state court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 31, 2016, plaintiffs and defendants agreed that Allergan or one of its subsidiaries would pay $150,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel in satisfaction of all plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 11, 2016, the Court entered an order, pursuant to a stipulation, taking the May 16, 2016 hearing off the Court's calendar, and no further proceedings are expected. The Court has not been asked to review, and will not pass judgment on, the agreed payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses. ECOLAB INC: Certification of Class of Route Sales Managers Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. ECOLAB, INC., Case No. 14-cv-1044 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify the action as a class action against the Defendant, and grant the Plaintiff leave instanter to file a memorandum in support of the motion six pages over the 15-page limit. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which alleges a claim on a class-wide basis for the Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Fair and the Illinois Wage Payment Collections Act. The IWPCA claim was subsequently dismissed. The putative class identified in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint consists of all Illinois citizens and all persons who were employed in Illinois, who during the relevant statute of limitations: (1) were employed by Ecolab as Route Sales Managers, and (2) who worked more than forty hours in a workweek, but did not receive overtime pay. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ggbung87 The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq. Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Andrew C. Murphy, Esq. DITOMMASO LUBIN P.C. 17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0000 E-mail: acm@ditommasolaw.com - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRANCE BUEHLER 55 W. Wacker Drive Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com EL DORADO HOME: Wins Conditional Certification of Three Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan O. Hickey entered an order in the lawsuit styled TRACI MORGAN, et al. v. EL DORADO HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01007-SOH (W.D. Ark.). Judge Hickey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and court-authorized notice as to separate Defendant El Dorado Home Care Services, LLC only. The classes conditionally certified are: (a) All registered nurses who worked for South Arkansas Home Health between the period of February 1, 2013 to the date on which the Court grants conditional certification and who were classified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements; (b) All licensed practical nurses who worked for South Arkansas Home Health between the period of February 1, 2013 to the date on which the Court grants conditional certification and who were classified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements; and (c) All certified occupational therapy assistants who worked for South Arkansas Home Health between the period of February 1, 2013 to the date on which the Court grants conditional certification and who were classified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. The notices and consent to join form are approved. Defendant El Dorado Home Care Services, LLC is directed to provide potential class members' contact information within seven days of the Order to be used for the sole purposes provided in the Stipulation. Upon receipt of the contact information of the potential class members, Judge Hickey ruled that the Plaintiffs will have 60 days to distribute Notice and file all Consent to Join forms. Judge Hickey noted that the Order does not address the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as to separate Defendant Community Health Services Professional Services Corporation (now known as CHSPSC, LLC) or any other entity or person. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CyhXqzsn ENI SPA: Trial in Class Action v. Saipem at Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------- Eni SpA said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the trial in a class action lawsuit is still in the early stages. With Resolution No. 18949 of June 18, 2014, the Italian Securities and Exchange Commission (Consob) fined Eni's former subsidiary Saipem euro 80,000 for the alleged delay in the issue of a profit warning, which was published on January 29, 2013. On July 28, 2014, Saipem filed an appeal against this resolution to the Court of Appeal of Milan, Italy, but it was rejected by the Court in its ruling of December 11, 2014. Therefore, Eni filed a recourse against the Court of Appeal's decision to the Italian Third Degree Court. On April 28, 2015, Saipem was served with a notice of a class action before the Court of Milan. The Company was sued by 64 institutional investors, claiming compensation amounting to euro 174 million, for damage allegedly incurred following the purchase of Saipem shares in the period between February 13, 2012 and June 14, 2013. Saipem appeared before a Judge, contesting entirely all the claims. The company objected the inadmissibility of the claims and stated that, in any case, those claims are groundless. The trial is still in the early stages. Besides that, in relation to the alleged delay in giving timely financial information to the market, in 2015, the Company received a number of out-of-court claims, as well as requests for mediation. The requests for which a mediation was sought but not successfully obtained amount to approximately euro 193 million. The Company denied any responsibility in relation to those out-of- court claims and requests for mediation. Up to date, neither the out-of-court claims nor the requests for mediation have turned into legal proceedings. Eni SpA engages in oil & gas exploration, development and production, marketing of gas, electricity and LNG, power generation, refining and marketing of petroleum products and, commodity trading. ENNISH CONSTRUCTION: "Zapata" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Zapata, Fabian Duarte, Juan Felipe Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ennish Construction Corp.; Solid Development Group Inc.; Barry Rafferty; Eamon Loughran; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 153910/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, beginning in May 2010 and continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime compensation as required. Ennish Construction supplies quality construction work for small and large projects from creative conception to final completion. The Plaintiffs are 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 EPIC SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in "Long" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LONG, D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-00081-bbc (W.D. Wisc.), moves the Court for an order granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Hawks Quindel, S.C., and Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. as class counsel, and to appoint her as class representative. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to approve her proposed notice attached as an exhibit to the Declaration of David C. Zoeller filed in support of the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PfcU5slL The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. William E. Parsons, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. Katelynn M. Williams, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com wparsons@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com kwilliams@hq-law.com - and - HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER S.C. Daniel A. Rottier, State Bar No. 1016998 Jason J. Knutson, State Bar No. 1035801 Breanne L. Snapp, State Bar No. 1091474 James R. Jansen, State Bar No. 1010325 150 East Gilman Street, Suite 2000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255-6663 Facsimile: (608) 255-0745 E-mail: rottier@habush.com jknutson@habush.com bsnapp@habush.com jjansen@habus.com EPIC SYSTEMS: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Long" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Epic Systems Corporation seeks decertification of the Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act collective action styled LONG, D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-00081-bbc (W.D. Wisc.). Ms. Long was employed by Epic in its Technical Communications group. She alleges that she and a putative class of Tech Comm employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime wages under state and federal laws. The Parties previously stipulated to conditional certification of the collective action claims and Court-authorized notice, and 14 others have submitted notices of consent to join the lawsuit. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements for collective adjudication of their claims because resolution of those claims requires a series of individualized determinations that cannot be satisfied through representative proof. Specifically, Epic points out, due to the dissimilarities in the work performed by each of the Plaintiffs, the fundamental question in this case -- whether each individual performed work that is exempt or non-exempt from earning overtime wages -- cannot be answered on the collective basis that the Plaintiffs urge. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fsuJHqAD The Defendant is represented by: Noah A. Finkel, Esq. Andrew Scroggins, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com ascroggins@seyfarth.com EXPRESS COURIER: Class Certification Sought in "Harris" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-5033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), filed their second motion for conditional certification of collective action, for disclosure of potential opt-in plaintiffs' contact information, and to send Court-approved notice. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this class under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act: Each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or owner-operator any time after February 11, 2013, (b) never subcontracted any of his or her work for Express, and (c) contracted directly with Express under Express's standard "Owner-Operator Agreement. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to pay them and all others similarly situated minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i6MuOixG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------- Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView LargeCap 500 Index Fund, LongView LargeCap 500 Index VEBA Fund, LongView LargeCap 1000 Growth Index Fund, LongView Quantitative LargeCap Fund, LongView Quantitative LargeCap VEBA Fund, and LongView Broadmarket 3000 Index Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellman, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter A. Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 12317-VCL (.Del. Chancery Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin stockholder vote on the reclassification and the consummation of the reclassification, which was announced on April 27, 2016, that will create a non-voting class of Facebook stock that will be paid out as a dividend in the ratio of two Class C shares for every Class A and Class B share. According to the complaint, the reclassification is a self- interested transaction intended to multiply by a factor of three the voting power of the high-voting shares held and controlled by Facebook's founder, CEO and Chairman, Mark Zuckerberg as compared to the economic interest of the shares. This will give Zuckerberg the ability to divest most of his economic interest in Facebook while retaining absolute voting control of the Company. Zuckerberg's primary reason for divesting the overwhelming majority of his economic interest -- to fund a charitable organization he founded with his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan -- while admirable, is irrelevant to the issue of whether it passes muster under Delaware law. The reclassification is scheduled for a stockholder vote at Facebook's June 20, 2016 annual meeting. Zuckerberg alone has the voting power to approve the reclassification. In the event that the reclassification is consummated, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duties. Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables people to connect, share, discover, and communicate each other on mobile devices and personal computers worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Cynthia A. Calder, Esq. Joseph L. Christensen, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 622 7000 Facsimile: (302) 622 7100 FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Ap-Fonden" Class Action in Del. ---------------------------------------------------- Sjunde Ap-Fonden, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan Desmondhellmann, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter A. Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 12318-VCL (Del. Chancery Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks, among other things, both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and damages to remedy the harm the minority Class A stockholders will sustain as a result of reclassification, which was announced on April 27, 2016, that will create a non-voting class of Facebook stock that will be paid out as a dividend in the ratio of two Class C shares for every Class A and Class B share. According to the complaint, since the Company's initial public offering (IPQ) in May 2012, the Company has had a dual-class stock structure consisting of Class A common stock (Class A Stock), which is entitled to one vote per share, and Class B common stock (Class B Stock), which is entitled to ten votes per share. This structure allowed Zuckerberg to continue to control Facebook even while selling off most of his equity in the Company. Zuckerberg beneficially owns 76.4% of the Company's 548,638,840 outstanding shares of Class B Stock and 3,999,241 shares (0.17%) of the 2,311,052,873 outstanding shares of Class A Stock. Together with his irrevocable voting proxy over 8.9% (48,892,913 shares) of the Class B Stock, Zuckerberg controls 60.1 % of the total voting power of all outstanding shares of Class A and Class B Stock. Facebook's Restated Certificate of Incorporation (certificate) provides that except in specified circumstances not applicable here, "the holders of shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock shall at all times vote together as a single class on all matters (including the election of directors) submitted to a vote." Accordingly, Zuckerberg controls the Facebook stockholder vote on virtually all matters, including the election of all directors. Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each other on mobile devices and personal computers worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Matthew A. Goldstein, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 - and - Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti Jr., Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Share Issuance -------------------------------------------------------- The Employee Retirement System of the City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, The Plaintiff, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreesseen, Peter Thiel, Reed Hastings, Susan Desmond-Hellmann, Erskine Bowles, Sheryl Sandberg, Jan Koum, and Facebook, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 12306 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 6, 2016), asks the Court to enjoin Facebook from implementing share issuance. According to the complaint, by approving and declaring advisable charter amendments that will facilitate the issuance of a massive number of non-voting shares to current stockholders (share issuance), Facebook's board of directors has agreed to give future control over Facebook to its founder and current controlling stockholder, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each other on mobile devices and personal computers worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com jgorris@friedlandergorris.com cquinn@friedlandergorris.com - and - Jeffrey Block, Esq. Jake Walker, Esq. Joel Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com FAMILY SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in "D'Arezzo" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DARLENE A. D'AREZZO, STACEY L. SALYERS and JOSEPH K. REARDON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. FAMILY SERVICE OF RHODE ISLAND, INC., alias, Case No. 1:15-cv-00121-M-PAS (D.R.I.), move for conditional collective certification. The Plaintiffs also move for Court facilitation of notice pursuant to Section 216(B) of the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action of all current and former individuals employed by the Defendant as purported Fee-For-Service Clinicians (or other comparable positions), who were subject to the following common practices and or policies of the Defendant, at any time from three years before the filing of this Complaint to the present: a) Who were paid under a purported "fee for service" arrangement or other similar arrangement; and, b) Who were required to perform tasks and/or otherwise perform work not included within the scope of the work for which "fees for service" were paid under their contract of employment and for which they were not compensated. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IFcjW7KE The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. 2374 Post Road, Suite 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-9690 Facsimile: (401) 739-9040 E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com FIRST RATE: "Njoroge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Relief ------------------------------------------------------ Jordyn Njoroge, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Rate Staffing Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Congra Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16815057 (Cal Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief, under the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay off-the-clock security checks, failed to pay off-the-clock donning and doffing, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to pay final wages following separation of employment. First Rate provides recruiting and staffing services for temporary positions in light industrial, distribution center, and assembly industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com FITLIFE BRANDS: Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal -------------------------------------------------- FitLife Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit has been stayed pending the resolution of an appeal. On December 31, 2014, various plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide and sub-class of purchasers, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ryan et al. v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc. et al., Case No.: 4:14-CV-05682. The lawsuit includes claims made against the manufacturer and various producers and sellers of products containing a nutritional supplement known as Testofen, which is manufactured and sold by Gencor Nutrients, Inc. ("Gencor"). Specifically, the Ryan plaintiffs allege that various defendants have manufactured, marketed and/or sold Testofen, or nutritional supplements containing Testofen, and in doing so represented to the public that Testofen had been clinically proven to increase free testosterone levels. According to the plaintiffs, those claims are false and/or not statistically proven. Plaintiffs seek relief under violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and violations of unfair trade practices in violation of California, Pennsylvania, and Arizona law. NDS utilizes Testofen in a limited number of nutritional supplements it manufactures and sells pursuant to a license agreement with Gencor. On February 19, 2015, this matter was transferred to the Central District of California to the Honorable Manuel Real. Judge Real had previously issued an order dismissing a previously filed but similar lawsuit that had been filed by the same lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the Ryan matter. That related lawsuit is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This matter has been stayed pending the resolution of that appeal. FitLife Brands, Inc. (the "Company") is a national provider of innovative and proprietary nutritional supplements for health conscious consumers marketed under the brand names NDS Nutrition Products(TM) ("NDS") (www.ndsnutrition.com), PMD(TM) (www.pmdsports.com), SirenLabs(TM) (www.sirenlabs.com), CoreActive(TM) (www.coreactivenutrition.com), and Metis Nutrition(TM) (www.metisnutrition.com) (together, "NDS Products"). FRENCH CREEK: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- Kim Phillips, by her undersigned counsel, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. French Creek Valley Christian Campus, the Defendant. Case No. 1:16-cv- 00101-BR (E.D. Penn., May 6, 2016), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy or practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week for the Defendant. The Defendant is a Christian-based Child Care Center and Elementary School in Saegertown, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C. The Frick Building 437 Grant Street, Suite 620 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 315 7195 Facsimile: (412) 315 7386 E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net FWC FUNDING: Faces "Harmon" Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Fish and Wildlife Conservation (FWC) Funding. The case is captioned Matthew Harmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FWC Funding and Does 1-20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:16- cv-03216 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2016). The Florida Constitution authorizes the FWC Commission to enact rules and regulations regarding the state's fish and wildlife resources. The Plaintiff appears pro se. GABRIEL ANTMAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 13, 2016, in the case styled Regina McCary v. Gabriel B Antman, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08275 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Manish S. Shah. The minute entry states that: -- for the reasons stated in open court, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted in part; -- the parties are directed to submit a proposed approval order and a class notice, with the Court's revisions, to proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov by May 16, 2016; -- class notice will be issued on June 13, 2016; -- objections or exclusions to the settlement are due on August 12, 2016; -- the fee petition must be submitted 30 days prior to objections; -- final approval hearing is set for September 6, 2016, at 11:00 a.m.; -- Plaintiff's early class certification motion is terminated as moot; and -- Defendants' oral request to withdraw the appearance of Corinne Heggie is granted, and Corinne Heggie is terminated as counsel of record for the Defendants. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VY7x5pZc GARLAND VENTURES: Recalls Chicken Fried Rice Products ------------------------------------------------------ Garland Ventures LTD, a Garland, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 114,870 pounds of chicken fried rice products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable chicken fried rice products were produced on various dates between Sept. 24, 2015 and Mar. 23, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 20 oz. pail boxes containing AllFresh Foods "ANJOY Chicken Fried Rice." Case Codes associated with the "ANJOY Chicken Fried Rice" product are as follows: 092415, 092915, 100215, 101325, 101615, 102015, 102715, 110315, 110615 and 032316. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-31993" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail distributor locations in Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and Utah. The problem was discovered when Garland Ventures LTD was notified by their supplier of vegetable fried rice, Ajinomoto Windsor Inc., that frozen foods involved in CRF Frozen Foods' recall were incorporated in their products. CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco, Washington voluntarily recalled frozen vegetable items due to an illness outbreak of listeriosis. There have been no confirmed reports of illness or adverse reactions due to consumption of Garland Ventures' products. The CRF Frozen Foods' recall can be found at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm498841.htm. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Robert Cocat, Garland Ventures LTD, General Manager, at (972) 485-8878. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. GEOPARK LIMITED: Brasil Unit Defending Class Action --------------------------------------------------- GeoPark Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Brazil, GeoPark Brasil is a party to a class action filed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office regarding a concession agreement of exploratory Block PN-T-597, which the ANP initially awarded GeoPark Brasil in the 12th oil and gas bidding round held in November 2013. The Brazilian Federal Court issued an injunction against the ANP and GeoPark Brasil in December 2013 that prohibited GeoPark Brasil's execution of the concession agreement until the ANP conducted studies on whether drilling for unconventional resources would contaminate the dams and aquifers in the region. On July 17, 2015, GeoPark Brasil, at the instruction of the ANP, signed the concession agreement, which included a clause prohibiting GeoPark Brasil from conducting unconventional exploration activity in the area. Despite the clause containing the prohibition, the judge in the case concluded that the concession agreement should not be executed. Thus, GeoPark Brasil requested that the ANP comply with the decision and annul the concession agreement, which the ANP's Board did on October 9, 2015. The annulment reverted the status of all parties to the status quo ante, which maintains GeoPark Brasil's right to the block. GOLD FIELDS: Judgment on Class Certification Bid Reserved --------------------------------------------------------- Gold Fields Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court in South Africa has reserved judgment on a request for class certification. The principal health risks associated with Gold Fields' mining operations in South Africa arise from occupational exposure to silica dust, noise, heat and certain hazardous chemicals. The most significant occupational diseases affecting Gold Fields's workforce include lung diseases (such as silicosis, tuberculosis, a combination of the two and chronic obstructive airways disease ("COAD") as well as noise induced hearing loss ("NIHL"). The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 78 of 1973 ("ODMWA") governs the compensation paid to mining employees who contract certain illnesses, such as silicosis. In 2011, the South African Constitutional Court ruled that a claim for compensation under ODMWA does not prevent employees from seeking compensation from their employer in a civil action under common law (either as individuals or as a class). While issues such as negligence and causation need to be proved on a case by case basis, it is possible that such ruling could expose Gold Fields to claims related to occupational hazards and diseases (including silicosis), which may be in the form of a class or similar group action. If Gold Fields were to face a significant number of such claims and the claims were suitably established against it, the payment of compensation for the claims could have a material adverse effect on Gold Fields' results of operations and financial condition. In addition, Gold Fields may incur significant additional costs arising out of these issues, including costs relating to the payment of fees, levies or other contributions in respect of compensatory or other funds established (if any) and expenditures arising out of its efforts to resolve any outstanding claims or other potential action. During 2012 and 2014, two court applications were served on Gold Fields and its subsidiaries (as well as other mining companies) by various applicants purporting to represent classes of mine workers (and, where deceased, their dependants) who were previously employed by or who are employees of, amongst others, Gold Fields or any of its subsidiaries and who allegedly contracted silicosis and/or tuberculosis. These are applications in terms of which the court is asked to certify a class action to be instituted by the applicants on behalf of the classes of affected people. According to the applicants, these are the first and preliminary steps in a process where, if the court were to certify the class action, the applicants will in the second stage, bring an action wherein they will attempt to hold Gold Fields and other mining companies liable for silicosis and/or tuberculosis and the resultant consequences. The applicants contemplate dealing in the second stage with what the applicants describe as common legal and factual issues regarding the claims arising for the whole of the classes. If the applicants are successful in the second stage, they envisage that individual members of the classes could later submit individual claims for damages against Gold Fields and the other mining companies. These applications do not identify the number of claims that could be instituted against Gold Fields and the other mining companies or the quantum of damages the applicants may seek. Gold Fields has opposed the applications. The two class actions were consolidated into one application on October 17, 2014. In terms of the consolidated application, the court is asked to allow the class actions to be certified. The consolidated application was heard during the weeks of 12 and 19 October 2015. Judgment has been reserved. If certification is granted, it will be the first step in a process whereby the applicants will, on behalf of the class or classes, seek to hold Gold Fields and the other mining companies liable for silicosis and/or tuberculosis and the resultant consequences. Any such claims will be defended. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bid for Certification of 2 Classes Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger entered an order in the lawsuit titled PB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., JANET HELM, JIMMY JEWELL, DEBORAH L. WAGNER, and STANLEY H. WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LP. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 3:12-cv-l366-HES-JBT (M.D. Fla.): * denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; * granting the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky; * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' trial expert disclosures; and * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the supplemental declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in further support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification in March 2015, seeking to certify both a damages class and an injunctive and declaratory relief class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Damages Class is defined as: All individuals and entities in the State of Florida that own or owned real property in which a Goodman Unit (under the Goodman or Amana brand names) containing copper evaporator coil was installed from July 1, 2006 to the present and who suffered damages as a result of having to repair and/or replace their Goodman Products due to leakage of refrigerant. The Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Class is defined as: All individuals and entities in the State of Florida that own real property in which a Goodman Unit (under the Goodman or Amana brand names) containing copper evaporator coil was installed from July 1, 2006 to the present. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ACpIM0oV GUESS? INC: $5.25MM "Isaguirre" Case Settlement Approved -------------------------------------------------------- Guess?, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has issued a final order and judgment approving a class action settlement. On August 25, 2006, Franchez Isaguirre, a former employee of the Company, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles alleging violations by the Company of California wage and hour laws. The complaint was subsequently amended, adding a second former employee as an additional named party. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of similarly situated employees in California who allegedly had been injured by not being provided adequate meal and rest breaks. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and injunctive and declaratory relief. On June 9, 2009, the Court certified the class but immediately stayed the case pending the resolution of a separate California Supreme Court case on the standards of class treatment for meal and rest break claims. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Superior Court denied the Company's motions to decertify the class and to narrow the class in January 2013 and June 2013, respectively. The Company subsequently petitioned to have the Court's decision not to narrow the class definition reviewed. That petition was ultimately denied by the California Supreme Court in April 2014. In July 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter for $5.25 million, subject to certain limited offsets. The Court issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement in February 2016. H & S AUTO: "Samarasinghe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Gamini Samarasinghe, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H & S Auto Repair Center Inc. and Humair M. Shaikh, jointly and severally, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02360 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the N.Y. Lab. Law, the Minimum Wage Act, and Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff and putative party plaintiffs have had substantially similar jobs, and compensation and have been subject to the Defendants' common policies and practices of willfully violating the FLSA. H & S Auto is a full-service auto repair shop in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, N.Y. 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229 2249 Facsimile: (212) 229 2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com HCSB FINANCIAL: Deposited Settlement Sum as Appeal Period Expires ----------------------------------------------------------------- HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, that on April 1, 2016, the statutory appeals period ended for the final approval order confirming the previously announced class action settlement agreement between the Company, the Bank, James R. Clarkson, Glenn Raymond Bullard, Ron Lee Paige, Sr., and Edward Lewis Loehr, Jr., the President and Chief Executive Officer, former Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the Bank, respectively, and Jan W. Snyder, Acey H. Livingston, and Mark Josephs, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of similarly situated purchasers of the Company's subordinated debt notes (Case No. 2014-CP-26-00204). No appeals were filed, and therefore, the class action settlement was final as of such date. On April 11, 2016, pursuant to the terms of the class action settlement agreement, the Company deposited approximately $2.4 million into a trust account with counsel for the class members. The approximately $2.4 million represents 20% of the principal of subordinated debt notes issued by the Company, and class members will receive 20% of their notes in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the class action lawsuit. Also on April 11, 2016, the Company settled, pursuant to previously executed binding settlement agreements, with all subordinated debt noteholders who opted out of the class action settlement. These settlements constituted the full satisfaction of the principal and interest owed on, and require the immediate dismissal of all pending litigation related to, the respective subordinated debt notes. In each case, the Company and the Bank also obtained a full and complete release of all claims asserted or that could have been asserted with respect to the subordinated debt notes. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, that the parties in a class action related to the Company's merger with Global Payments Inc., have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"). On December 15, 2015, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland" or the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Global Payments Inc., a Georgia corporation ("Global Payments"), Data Merger Sub One, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments ("Merger Sub One"), and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments ("Merger Sub Two"). Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Global Payments will acquire the Company by way of two mergers. First, Merger Sub One will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments. Second, the Company will merge with and into Merger Sub Two immediately following the initial merger, with Merger Sub Two surviving the second merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments. As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus dated March 23, 2016 and mailed to Heartland stockholders on or about March 24, 2016 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), Heartland, the Heartland Board of Directors, Global Payments, Merger Sub One and Merger Sub Two have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed mergers (the "Action"). The Action was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al., L-45-16 (filed January 8, 2016). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement and failing to properly value Heartland. In addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the mergers, rescission of the mergers or rescissory damages to the extent they have already been implemented, and an award of damages and attorneys' fees. On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff Kevin Merchant filed an amended complaint that further alleged that the February 5, 2016 preliminary proxy statement contained materially misleading statements and omissions. On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations made by Plaintiff, Heartland and Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the Action. On April 12, 2016, the parties to the Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") to document the terms and conditions for settlement of the Action. The MOU contemplates that Heartland will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Mergers, all of which are set forth below. Although the defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations in the Action and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, Heartland agreed to make such supplemental disclosures in accordance with the terms of the MOU. The proposed settlement of the Action is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey will consider the fairness of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it will release all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Mergers or the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, under terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of the proposed settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU. In such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated and the defendants would vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action. HERTZ RENTAL: Dismissal of 4th Amended Complaint Sought ------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Rental Car Holding Company, Inc. said in an exhibit to Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 General Form For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that Hertz Holdings is seeking dismissal of the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice in the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. HILTON HOTELS: Sued in D.C. Over Employee Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Valerie R. White, 700 Decatur St. NE, Washington DC 20017; Eva Juneau, 730 Gordon Ave., Reno NV 89509; Peter Betancourt, 1270 Wilshire Circle East, Pembroke Pines, FL 33027, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 7930 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 1100, McLean, VA 22102; Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 7930 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 1100, McLean, VA 22102; Global Benefits Administrative Committee; Mary Nell Billings; S. Ted Nelson; Casey Young; and unnamed members of the Global Benefits Administrative Committee, 755 Crossover Ln, Memphis, TN 38117, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00856 (D.D.C., May 6, 2016), the plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights to receive vested retirement benefits in accordance with the District Court's decisions in a related case, Kifafi, et al., v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., C.A. 98-1517 (D.D.C.), and the standards set forth in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that by requiring improperly long periods of service to become vested in retirement benefits, Hilton Hotels has not maintained its pension plan according to the standards required by ERISA and the District Court's decisions in Kifafi. Hilton Hotels is an international chain of full service hotels and resorts and the flagship brand of Hilton Worldwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 289 1117 E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net acaalim@verizon.net HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Paz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Houslanger & Associates, P.L.L.C. The case is captioned Orit Paz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Houslanger & Associates, P.L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02335 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Houslanger is a debt-collection law firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791 4400 Facsimile: (516) 791 4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com IDAHO: DOJ Supports Criminal Defendants' Right to Sue ----------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Justice Department has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Idaho Supreme Court in support of criminal defendants' right to sue for violations of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The DOJ said in its brief filed May 11, that criminals who can't afford an attorney and who have effectively been denied adequate representation should be allowed sue before their trial begins, rather than waiting until later to bring their claims. "This country is dedicated to the idea that every single person is entitled to equal justice under the law, regardless of wealth or prominence," U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement May 12. "The right to adequate counsel is an essential safeguard of our commitment to equal justice --and it is the responsibility of the states to protect that right, to uphold that principle, and to ensure that every defendant has access to competent counsel." The DOJ stepped in following an Idaho state court's decision in Tucker et al. v. State of Idaho et al., which held that the plaintiffs could not bring a prospective claim for constructive denial of counsel prior to conviction. Four criminal defendants awaiting trial or sentencing brought the class action. They claim there is a "systemic failure" in Idaho's public-defender system to provide adequate representation to criminal defendants, resulting in the "constructive denial of counsel for indigent criminal defendants in violation of the Sixth and 14th Amendments." The plaintiff claim that the state's systemic failure has led to the "wholesale absence of counsel in initial appearances, resulting in plaintiffs' inability to argue for reduced bail and, consequently unnecessary or extended pretrial detention." It has also led to a lack of investigation of their cases, the inability to meet or communicate with their assigned lawyer, the failure to file motions on their behalf and a "lack of funds to retain necessary experts to challenge the prosecution's allegations," the plaintiffs claim. Tucker, for example, claims that his court-appointed attorney never showed up to his initial appearance in which bail was set at $40,000, resulting in a three-month stay in jail. He says he saw his attorney three times, for a total of 20 minutes, during that period. He adds that he made over 50 unsuccessful attempts to reach his attorney by phone and that no meaningful investigation of his case was performed. The plaintiffs claim that thousands of indigent criminal defendants have had similar experiences across Idaho. They say the problem is rooted in deficiencies that include: caseloads that far exceed the national standards; insufficient funding; a lack of oversight, training and performance standards; lack of independence from local boards of commissioners who control hiring, firing and funding; and the use of "fixed-fee" contracts that "create incentives for appointed attorneys to spend as little money and time as possible on indigent clients' cases, despite the fact that such contracts are prohibited by Idaho code." The plaintiffs sued Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and seven members of the Idaho Public Defense Commission in state court. They sought declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the state to develop a plan to implement a working statewide system of public defense that complies with the Constitution. The state moved to dismiss the complaint and the state court granted the motion on Jan. 20. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims "are not justiciable for three reasons: that plaintiffs lack standing, the case is not ripe and the relief plaintiffs request would require the court to invade the province of the Legislature." The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not bring a prospective civil claim for constructive denial of council. The DOJ rejected the state court's findings, citing in part Avery v. Alabama, which held that "if appointed counsel is denied the opportunity 'to confer, to consult with the accused and to prepare his defense' then the appointment of counsel becomes 'a sham and nothing more than a formal compliance with the Constitution's requirement that an accused be given the assistance of counsel." The case is now before the Idaho Supreme Court, which will consider whether the claims can proceed. In its brief, the Justice Department cites Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that criminal defendants are entitled to adequate representation regardless of whether they have the money to pay for an attorney. "The criminal justice system works well only when indigent defendants are adequately represented," U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson of the District of Idaho said. "The Constitution guarantees this right. The purpose of this brief is to ensure that indigent defendants in Idaho have a meaningful legal tool to effectuate that constitutional right when the provision of public defense is failing on a system-wide level." A similar brief was filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Kuren et al. v. Luzerne County et al. in September 2015. The court has yet to make a ruling in that case. IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Valdo Sulaj Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned VALDO SULAJ, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, JUAN PEREZ, an individual, and GINO MASCI, an individual, Case No. Case No. 1:16- cv-21239-UU (S.D. Fla.), moves to certify the proposed collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and facilitate notice to potential class members. The Plaintiff seeks collective-action certification of this class of similarly situated persons: All persons who worked for Defendants as servers and bartenders at their restaurant Il Gabbiano during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring tipped employees to pool tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, earned less than the applicable minimum regular and overtime wage for one or more weeks during the Relevant Time Period. The Complaint seeks damages for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for violations of the FLSA. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges he and Class Members were forced to participate in a mandatory and invalid tip pool scheme in which tipped employees, specifically servers and bartenders, shared their tips with non- tipped employees, specifically management. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wDwLbd5t The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland Cty. Fund Suit Moved to Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund, a public pension fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods Inc., a foreign corporation, Terry McDaniel, individual, Steve Weinberger, individual, Capital Foods, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., a foreign limited liability company, Canaccord Genuity, a foreign corporation, and Roth Capital Partners, a foreign partnership, the Defendants, was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No., CV2016-002718, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Arizona District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01410-SPL to the proceeding. Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food products. Westmoreland Employee Retirement Fund is represented by: Patrick J. McGroder III Lincoln Combs Shannon L. Clark Paul L. Stoller GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 2575 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225 Telephone.: (602) 530 8000 Facsimile: 602.530.8500 E-mail: pjm@gknet.com lincoln.combs@gknet.com slc@gknet.com paul.stoller@gknet.com - and - Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq. Christina Donato Saler, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642 8500 Facsimile: (610) 649 3633 E-mail: kimdonaldsonsmith@chimicles.com cdsaler@chimicles.com Inventure Foods Inc., Terry McDaniel, and Steve Weinberger are represented by: Mark A. Nadeau, Esq. Laura Sixkiller, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2525 East Camelback Road, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4232 Telephone: (480) 606 5100 Facsimile (480) 606 5101 E-mail: mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com laura.sixkiller@dlapiper.com William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Canaccord Genuity Inc. and Roth Capital Partners, LLC are represented by: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Charlene S. Shimada, Esq. Lucy Wang, Esq. One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442 1000 Facsimile: (415) 442 1001 E-mail: lucy.wang@morganlewis.com charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com - and - Lee Stein, Esq. Anne M. Chapman, Esq. MITCHELL STEIN CAREY, PC One Renaissance Square 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 358 0292 Facsimile: (602) 358 0291 E-mail: anne@mitchellsteincarey.com Lee@mitchellsteincarey.com KIDRON CORPORATE: Sued in N.Y. Over Transperfect Dissolution ------------------------------------------------------------ Shirley Shawe, derivatively on behalf of Transperfect Global, Inc., and Transperfect Translations International, Inc. the Plaintiff, v. Kidron Corporate Advisors LLC, Mark B. Segall, John and Jane Does 1-10, whose true names are unknown, the Defendants, and Transperfect Global, Inc., and Transperfect Translations International, Inc., the Nominal Parties, Case No. 652482/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks to redress for the wrongs committed by Defendants while directing and advising the Company's Director and Officer, Elizabeth Elting, on actions that constituted breaches of her fiduciary duties to the Company. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted Ms. Elting in manufacturing deadlock at the Company as a part of a strategy to cause the Company's dissolution in violation of her fiduciary duties. In 2012, with an eye toward selling her shares and ending her relationship with the Company, Ms. Elting began to insist that large amounts of the Company's profits be distributed to her without regard to the well-being, working capital requirements, or continued growth and development of the Company. Kidron Corporate is a full service boutique investment bank specializing in cross-border emerging growth companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin P. Russo, Esq. GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC 120 Wall Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 269 1400 Facsimile: (212) 809 5449 E-mail: mrusso@gusraekaplan.com KOOS MANUFACTURING: "Bernal" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- Josefa Bernal, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Koos Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619753 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks relief as may be necessary to restore to the Plaintiffs the money and property which Defendants have acquired, or of which Plaintiff and the Class have been deprived by unfair and unlawful business practices of the Defendants, pursuant to the Labor Code and the Industrial Commission Wage Orders. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed as an employee paid on a piece rate basis by the Defendants and were not properly paid for time worked and did not receive accurate wage statements. Koos Manufacturing is a premier denim jeans manufacturer in Los Angeles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322 2211 Facsimile: (310) 322 2252 E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com KRAFT FOODS: 6th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Starbucks Coffee Pods --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Kraft did not have to ensure the continued availability of Starbucks single-serve coffee pods when it partnered with Starbucks to sell its Tassimo single-cup coffee brewer, the Sixth Circuit ruled, dismissing a consumer class action. When Pamella Montgomery bought a Tassimo single-cup coffee machine made by Kraft Foods, the machine bore a sticker reading, "Featuring Starbucks Coffee." Shortly thereafter, however, Kraft's business relationship with Starbucks went sour. Starbucks coffee pods, also called T-Discs, compatible with the machine became increasingly difficult to find and eventually disappeared. Other coffeemakers, including Maxwell House and Gevalia, still make coffee pods compatible with the machine. But Montgomery was dissatisfied with her purchase, and sought to represent a class in Michigan, accusing Kraft and Starbucks of violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and breach of express and implied warranty. A federal judge refused to certify the class, dismissed Montgomery's warranty claims, and approved an offer by the defendants to pay Montgomery $250 on her consumer claim, plus $6,800 in attorneys' fees. Montgomery had sought $180,000 in fees and costs. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Monday out of Cincinnati. "To properly plead a breach-of-express-warranty claim then, Montgomery needed to allege that she was in privity with defendants," Judge Deborah Cook said, writing for the three-judge panel. "She didn't; her complaint acknowledged that she bought her Tassimo from a Fred Meijer grocery store, not directly from defendants." The opinion notes that there is no claim by Montgomery that her Tassimo is inoperable, nor that the brewer failed to live up to its promise to make a "perfectly brewed cup" of Starbucks coffee at the time she purchased the machine. "Though Montgomery insists that the outer-box statements warrant the 'continued availability' of Starbucks T-Discs, we find no error by the district court in not reading that promise into the box-labeling," Cook said. The case caption PAMELLA MONTGOMERY, on behalf of herself and for the benefit of all with the common or general interest, any persons injured, and all others similarily situated, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendants- Appellees., No. 15-1283 (6th Cir.) A copy of the Sixth Circuit's decision dated May 16 is available at https://is.gd/Vd6c74 from Leagle.com. Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. LA AUTENTICA: Recalls Meat Tamale Products Due to Listeria ---------------------------------------------------------- La Autentica Foods, LLC., a Hialeah, Fla. establishment, is recalling approximately 117,350 pounds of meat tamale products that may be adulterated with Listeria Monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable tamale in corn husk items were produced from Sept. 4, 2015 to April 26, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 20-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing four pieces of "GOYA FOODS TAMAL EN HOJA TAMAL IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by dates 02/2017-09/2017 of and packaging dates of 9/28/15- 4/5/16." --- 30-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing six pieces of "QUIRCH FOODS TAMAL CUBANO EN SU HOJA CUBAN TAMALE WRAPPED IN CORN HUSK WITH DICED PORK with use by/sell by dates of 02/2017-10/2017 and packaging dates of 9/28/2015- 4/11/2016." --- 20-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing four pieces of "LA MILPA TAMALES CUBANOS ESTILO CASERO CUBAN STYLE TAMALES WITH PORK with use by/sell by dates of 05/2017-10/2017 and packaging dates of 11/5/2015-4/26/2016." --- 15.5-lb. BOX packages containing fifty pieces of "LA MILPA TAMALES WRAPPED IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by dates 09/2016-04/2017 and packaging dates of 9/4/2015-4/14/2016." --- 15.5-lb. BOX packages containing forty pieces of "LA MILPA TAMALES ESPECIAL WRAPPED IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by dates of 09/2016 and packaging dates of 9/15/2015- 4/13/2016." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 11154" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to a retail and restaurant locations in Florida and New Jersey. The problem was discovered during an FDA recall of frozen corn contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Mr. Fabrice Riviere, President, at (786)-409-3779. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. LAVIAN LTD: Faces "Williams" Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lavian Ltd. d/b/a Dermelect Cosmeceuticals, a New York corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619687 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks statutory remedies provided by the California Penal Code. According to the complaint, in May, 2015, while located in California, the Plaintiff called Defendant from a wireless telephone. The Plaintiff spoke to an employee/customer service representative of Defendant who identified herself as "Cheryl." The Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded. The Defendant also did not, at any point during the telephone conversation with Defendant's customer service representative, advise the Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. The Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent to the recording. Lavian is a perfume & cosmetics company in Great Neck, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706 6464 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com mailto:dreid@trialnewport.com LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "on April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class action suit against three of our subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and unquantified damages. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice." LE CREUSET: Faces "Shapiro" Consumer Class Action in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- Cara Shapiro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Le Creuset of America, Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619576 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), is a consumer class action that arose from the Defendant's violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and the California Civil Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant accepts credit cards in payment for merchandise. The Defendant then creates a buying history and run individual mailing lists in order to market their products or solicit customers and sell such data to direct marketing specialists or other third parties. The Defendant operates stores throughout the United States which offer cookware and other kitchen accessories. As of May 2016, Defendant operated seventy-four signature retail and outlet stores in the United States, including eight outlet stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor Encino, CA 9l436 Telephone: (818) 783 8836 Facsimile: (818) 783 9985 E-mail: zev@zvsmanlawca.com LYFT: Agrees to Pay $27-Mil. to Resolve Calif. Drivers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Lyft has agreed to pay $27 million to settle a class action filed by California drivers, after a federal judge in San Francisco rejected a proposed $12.5 million settlement. The 2013 suit claims that Lyft drivers in California should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, and that the misclassification allows Lyft to avoid paying employment benefits and reimbursement for gas and vehicle maintenance. Lyft agreed to settle the lawsuit in January, and settlement negotiations were based on Lyft-supplied data including the company's driver population through June 2015. That data supported an estimate of $64 million as the most that drivers could claim for expense reimbursement. But Lyft later provided updated driver population numbers through February 2016 which increased the potential expense reimbursement claim to $126 million. At a March hearing, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he did not understand why the case's maximum recovery value should not be the higher figure. Kristin Sverchek, Lyft's general counsel, said in a statement about the revised settlement amount that "in light of Lyft's growth, we agreed to update the resolution in a way that both increased monies paid to drivers and helped preserve their flexibility to control when, where and for how long they drive on the platform." Under the new $27 million settlement, the plaintiff drivers will receive more than double what they would have under the initial deal, the drivers' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said in a statement. "We are proud to have reached this new agreement, which will provide significant payments to Lyft drivers who have put a lot of their time into this company," Liss-Riordan said. Although the settlement does not give the drivers employee status, Liss-Riordan said that the agreement "provides a fair resolution of the case, will get money into the pockets of drivers now and will provide them greater job security." A hearing on the revised settlement is scheduled for June. LIVING ASSISTANCE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Recorded Call ------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Santos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Living Assistance Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619688 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks statutory remedies provided in the California Penal Code. According to the complaint, in July, 2015 while located in California, the Plaintiff called Defendant from a wireless telephone. The Plaintiff spoke to an employee/customer service representative of Defendant who identified himself as "Barbara". The Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded. The Defendant also did not, at any point during the telephone conversation with Defendant's customer service representative, advise Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent to the recording. After completing her call, Plaintiff learned that Defendant records all incoming telephone calls but does not disclose this to every caller, and did not disclose this to the Plaintiff. Living Assistance Services provides senior care & home care services in Toronto. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706 6464 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, L.P. The case is captioned Hindy Bakon, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02348 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). LTD Financial is a debt collector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity in Herbal Supplements Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., is providing indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in the case, In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, Twinlab said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company is not a party to this matter, which joined in a multidistrict litigation a number of purported class actions arising from allegations raised by a state attorney general claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on behalf the attorney general indicated that certain herbal supplement products did not contain the herbal ingredients stated on the label. The Company does, however, pursuant to contractual obligations provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in this litigation. The defendants in this litigation believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are meritless and are defending this matter vigorously. MEDBOX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held on May 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for Central District of California was scheduled to consider final approval of the $1,850,000 settlement reached in the class action lawsuit by Josh Crystal against Medbox, Inc., and certain past and present members of the Company's Board. Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on January 21, 2015, Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California against Medbox, Inc., and certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and C. Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through public announcements and filings that were materially false and misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. On October 16, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the parties to the class actions entered into settlements that collectively effect a global settlement of all claims asserted in the class actions and the derivative actions. The global settlement provides, among other things, for the release and dismissal of all asserted claims. The global settlement is contingent on final court approval, respectively, of the settlements of the class actions and derivative actions. If the global settlement does not receive final court approval, it could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future. Class Settlement On December 1, 2015, Medbox and the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") notified the Court of the settlement. The Court stayed the action pending the Court's review of the settlement and directed the parties to file a stipulation of settlement. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement that included the stipulation of settlement. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement provides for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval hearing. The principal terms of the settlement are: * a cash payment to a settlement escrow account in the amount of $1,850,000 of which $150,000 will be paid by the Company and $1,700,000 will be paid by the Company's insurers; * a transfer of 2,300,000 shares of Medbox common stock to the settlement escrow account, of which 2,000,000 shares would be contributed by Medbox and 300,000 shares by Bruce Bedrick; * the net proceeds of the settlement escrow, after deduction of Court-approved administrative costs and any Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs would be distributed to the Class; and * releases of claims and dismissal of the action. By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. However, the final determination is subject to approval by the Federal Courts. Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. If the global settlement does not receive final court approval, it could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future. Notis Global provides specialized services to the hemp and marijuana industry. Effective January 28, 2016, the Company changed its legal corporate name from Medbox, Inc., to Notis Global, Inc. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned Norma Gutierrez on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02580-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 6, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Esther Salas. Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed collections and accounts receivable management firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, N.J. 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com MERCY HEALTH: Sued in W.D. Okla. Over Pension Plan -------------------------------------------------- Sally Sanzone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercy Health; the Mercy Health Benefits Committee; John and Jane Does 1-10, members of the Mercy Health Benefits Committee; the Mercy Health Stewardship Committee; John and Jane Does 11-20, members of the Mercy Health Stewardship Committee; John and Jane Does 21-40, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00478-D(W.D. Okla., May 6, 2016), seeks an order requiring Mercy to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, (ERISA) and afford the Class all the protections of ERISA with respect to Mercy's defined benefit pension plans. According to the complaint, the case concerns whether Mercy properly maintains its pension plans under ERISA. Mercy allegedly fails to do so, to the detriment of over 40,000 employees. Mercy Health, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, operates a healthcare conglomerate in Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas and provides healthcare services in the communities it serves. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. James P. Woodruff, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239 2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jpw@federmanlaw.com - and - Laura R. Gerber, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Havila C. Unrein, Esq. Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 Email: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com hunrein@kellerrohrback.com rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com - and - Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Michelle Yau, Esq. Scott Lempert, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com slempert@cohenmilstein.com MERLEX STUCCO: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Stucco Product ---------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Sandoval; Gloria Sandoval; John Alms; and Christine Alms, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Merlex Stucco, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619322 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks damages due to Defendants' negligent representations regarding its stucco products, under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of all persons that purchased and had their homes stuccoed with Merlex Stucco product. The stucco indirectly sold to Plaintiffs between March 1, 2014 and June 2, 2014 contained significant quantities of iron, which resulted in rust spots appearing throughout the new stucco application on Plaintiff's homes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Kent, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LARRY KENT 3553 Atlantic Ave. Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (562) 426 2258 Facsimile: (562) 426 2058 - and - Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq. Eduardo Martorell, Esq. Olga G. Pefla, Esq. BORDIN MARTORELL LLP Howard Hughes Center 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (323) 457 2110 Facsimile: (323) 457 2120 E-mail: JBordin-Wosk@Bordirilvlartorell.com EMartorell@BordinMartorell.com Opena@BordinMartorell.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Owens" Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014). Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts, as a settlement option for death benefits. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established a TCA to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. * * * The Mandatory Scheduling Conference set for March 8, 2016, was continued to April 26, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9, before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. On May 9, a Notice of Settlement, contingent upon execution of a settlement agreement by all parties, was filed by Arthur Owens; and on May 10, a Notice of Settlement of Third Party Claims was by Metropolitan Life. Arthur Owens, Plaintiff, represented by: Tanya E. Moore, Esq. Moore Law Firm, P.C. 332 N 2nd St San Jose, CA 95112 Tel: 408-271-6600 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph W. Strella, Jr. -- jstrella@clappmoroney.com -- Clapp, Moroney, Vucinich, Beeman & Scheley. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in "Robainas" Action ------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal is pending in the Reinsurance Litigation, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal is pending in the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. The Court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Order in "Fauley" Case Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Intermediate Appellate Court on March 23, 2016, affirmed the trial court's order in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend vigorously the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015). Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Martin" Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015). Plaintiffs filed this this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Lau" Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015) This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology Metropolitan Life Insurance Company uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. MIDATECH PHARMA: Class Suit Over DARA BioScience Deal Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------- Midatech Pharma Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has entered a Stipulation and Order Concerning Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal of a class action lawsuit. On December 4, 2015, Midatech acquired DARA BioSciences, Inc. ("DARA") through a merger transaction (the "Merger") in which the stockholders of DARA Biosciences, Inc. received (i) American depositary shares ("Depositary Shares") representing the ordinary shares of Midatech, nominal value 0.005p per share (the "Ordinary Shares") and (ii) contingent value rights which represents the right to receive contingent payments if specified milestones are achieved within agreed time periods. Immediately following the closing of the Merger, DARA became a wholly owned subsidiary of Midatech and changed its named to "Midatech Pharma US Inc." ("Midatech US"). In connection with the acquisition of DARA, DARA, its individual Board of Directors, Midatech and two of its Delaware subsidiaries formed solely to facilitate the merger, were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged DARA stockholders challenging DARA's proposed merger with Midatech. Three stockholder actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, (Steve Schnipper v. David J. Drutz, et al., C.A. No. 11194-VCG, filed June 23, 2015; Matthew Quinn v. DARA BioSciences, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11217-VCG, filed on June 26, 2015; and Eric Edwards v. David J. Drutz, et al., C.A. No. 11262- VCG, filed on July 8, 2015) and one stockholder action was filed in the Superior Court in Wake County, North Carolina (Jacob Presson v. DARA BioSciences, Inc., et al., C.A. 15-CV-009775, filed on July 27, 2015) (the "North Carolina Complaint"). On August 21, 2015, the plaintiff in the Schnipper action filed an amended complaint (the "Schnipper Amended Complaint"). On September 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter, In re DARA BioSciences Stockholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. 11194- VCG (the "Consolidated Delaware Action"), and designated the Schnipper Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. On October 1, 2015, the Superior Court in Wake County, North Carolina entered an order staying the North Carolina Complaint at the request of the parties. The stockholder actions generally alleged, among other things, that (i) each member of DARA's Board of Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to DARA and its stockholders by authorizing the sale of DARA to Midatech, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to DARA stockholders; and (iii) Midatech, its subsidiaries, and DARA aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the DARA Board of Directors. In addition, the Consolidated Delaware Action alleged that Midatech's Registration Statement on Form F-4 filed August 11, 2015 omitted or misstates certain material information. The stockholder actions sought class action certification and equitable relief, including judgments enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms. On January 5, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a Stipulation and Order Concerning Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal of the Action and Plaintiffs' Counsel's Anticipated Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Dismissal Order"). Pursuant to the Dismissal Order, the Consolidated Delaware Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the other members of the purported class. The Dismissal Order also provides that the Court of Chancery will retain jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and expenses based on plaintiffs' argument that certain supplemental disclosures made by DARA were made in response to Plaintiffs' allegations that Midatech's Registration Statement on Form F-4 filed August 11, 2015 omitted or misstated certain material information. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Genova" Suit in D.N.J. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned Rocco Genova, on behalf of himself and all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. MCM also known as Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02630-KM- MAH (D.N.J., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kevin McNulty. MCM helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. The Company provides flexible payment plans and financial education tools. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526 4093 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com MILLER AND STEENO: Class Certification Sought in "Strader" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MAURICE STRADER, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. MILLER AND STEENO, P.C., RONALD C. MILLER; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Case No. 16-cv-5199 (N.D. Ill.), seeks certification of two classes over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The two classes Plaintiff seeks to certify are defined as: (1) The LVNV class consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom Arrow Financial Services, LLC ("Arrow") obtained a judgment (c) which LVNV claims or purports to have acquired (d) where any attempt was thereafter made to collect the judgment (e) without notifying the individual of the involvement of LVNV; and (2) The Miller class consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom party A obtained a judgment (c) which party B claims or purports to have acquired (d) where any attempt was thereafter made to collect the judgment by Miller and Steeno (e) without notifying the individual of the involvement of party B. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=slFcofbs The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C. 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com MISSION HOSPITAL: EEOC Sues Over Civil Rights Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, representing complainants Christine Bolella, Melody Mitchell and Titus Robinson, Plaintiff(s), v. Mission Hospital, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16- CV-00118 (W.D. N.C., April 28, 2016), seeks permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing their discriminatory policies and practice. The suit also seeks complainant's back pay with prejudgment interest, affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices, compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, punitive damages for Bolella, Mitchell, Robinson and Kouns and such further relief pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a government agency charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of civil rights. Christine Bolella, Melody Mitchell and Titus Robinson each filed a charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging civil rights violations by Mission Hospital. Defendant has maintained a Staff Immunization Policy that requires employees to receive a flu vaccination annually. Bolella, Mitchell and Robinson requested an exception because of religious beliefs. This was denied and became grounds for their termination. The Plaintiff is represented by: P. David Lopez, Esq. James L. Lee, Esq. Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 131 M Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20507 - and - Lynette A. Barnes, Esq. Kara Gibbon Haden, Esq. Stephanie M. Jones, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, N.C. 28202 Telephone: 704.954.6471 Facsimile: 704.954.6412 Email: stephanie.jones@eeoc.gov MONTEREY FINANCIAL: "Brinkley" Suit Moved to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiffany Brinkley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOE No. 1 Monterey Financial Services, LLC, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02013- 00071119-CU-MC-NC, was removed from Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-WQH-WVG to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. William Q. Hayes. Monterey Financial is a full-service factoring company with services in consumer financing, debt recovery and loan servicing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 6156 Innovation Way Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (760) 929 9303 Facsimile: (760) 929 9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Orr, Esq. Call & Jensen APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717 3000 Facsimile: (949) 717 3100 E-mail: morr@calljensen.com MT. FUJI: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Mt. Fuji Japanese Cuisine NY Inc. The case is captioned Yun Lin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mt. Fuji Japanese Cuisine NY Inc., Sum Sun Cheng, Tom Cheng, Sum Choi Cheng, John or Jane Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02367 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Mt. Fuji specializes in Japanese and American foods and catering services for weddings, corporate meetings and bridal showers. The Plaintiff appears pro se. NEW YORK: Governor, et al. Faces "Trowbridge" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Cuomo. The case is captioned Christopher Trowbridge, Michael Torres, Ronnie Pagan, Juan Ortiz, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Andrew Cuomo, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of New York; Janet DiFiore, in her official capacity as Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judicial Officer of the Unified Court System; Lawrence Marks, in his capacity as Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03455- GBD (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. George B. Daniels. Andrew Mark Cuomo is an American politician serving as the 56th Governor of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Solomon Lee, Esq. James Andrew Newton e, Esq. Jennifer Kay Brown, Esq. Katie Louise Viggiani, Esq. Ruti Smithline, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: gary.lee@mofo.com jnewton@mofo.com jbrown@mofo.com kviggiani@mofo.com rsmithline@mofo.com - and - Douglas Edward Lieb, Esq. Ilann M. Maazel, Esq. Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763 5000 E-mail: dlieb@ecbalaw.com imaazel@ecbalaw.com mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com - and - Scott Duffield Levy, Esq. THE BRONX DEFENDERS 860 Courtlandt Ave. Bronx, NY 11238 Telephone: (718) 838-7833 Facsimile: (718) 508-3547 E-mail: scottl@bronxdefenders.org NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Automated Text Messaging ------------------------------------------------------ Sheila Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York & Company, Inc.; New York & Company Stores, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00855- TSC(D.D.C., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from the illegal actions of Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants sent unauthorized automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Defendants retail women's clothing through over 500 nationwide stores and online. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Burton, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 Facsimile: (203) 653 3424 NEWLINK GENETICS: Investors File Class Suit in Manhattan -------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that shareholders of Newlink Genetics claim in court the Iowa-based drug company lied to them about the effectiveness of their pancreatic cancer treatment to sell its shares at inflated prices. In a federal class action filed May 12, in Manhattan, lead plaintiff Trevor Abramson claims the company made misleading statements in press releases, SEC filings, and quarterly and annual reports intended to convince shareholders no safety issues had been associated with their pancreatic cancer treatment, algenpantucel-L, which was in Phase 3 clinical trials during a class period extending from September 2013 to May 9, 2016. Among numerous examples, Abramson cites a press release NewLink issued in March 2014, in which the company stated "In any case, it is reassuring that no unexpected safety issues or other concerns were raised by the independent data safety monitoring committee." On May 9, 2016, however, NewLink announced that algenpantucel-L did not meet the main goal in the Phase 3 IMPRESS clinical study. Patients treated with algenpantucel-L lived for a median of 27.3 months in the company's Phase 3 trial, compared to median survival of 30.4 months for patients treated with standard therapy. These results suggested that patients were in fact harmed by NewLink's treatment, the complaint says. The algenpantucel-L immunotherapy was supposed to stimulate patients' immune systems to react to cancer cells and kill them, but failed to do so in the Phase 3 clinical trial. Following the news of the drug's failure, NewLink's stock price fell $5.05, or 30.61%, to close at $11.45 on May 10, 2016. Abramson, who purchased 200 shares of the company's stock at just over $23 per share, accuses NewLink Genetics of two counts of violations of the Exchange Act, Section 10(b) and Section 20(a).NewLink was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Ames, Iowa. It trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "NLNK." In 2015, NewLink was tapped to provide Ebola vaccine candidate for a large clinical trial in Liberia. Representatives of NewLink Genetics referred Courthouse News to a PR firm which declined to comment. Abramson and class are represented by Jeremy Lieberman at Pomerantz LLP in New York. NEWPORT CORPORATION: Facing Class Actions Over MKS Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Newport Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, that as disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 23, 2016 by Newport Corporation (the "Company"), on February 22, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MKS Instruments, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation ("Parent"), and PSI Equipment, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended complaint, which added certain allegations, including that the Proxy Statement omitted material information. Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders. Both putative class action lawsuits relate to the Merger Agreement. On March 30, 2016, plaintiff in the Pincon action filed a motion seeking expedited discovery, which defendants opposed. On March 31, 2016, plaintiff in the Pincon action filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Pincon action with the putative class action complaint with the Chung action and to appoint counsel for plaintiff in the Pincon action as lead counsel. At a hearing on these motions on April 14, 2016, the Court partially allowed the motion seeking expedited discovery. The Court also granted the motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel. Finally, the Court established a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' anticipated motion for preliminary injunction and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints have no merit and the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the named directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims. OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: "Lohman" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Lohman, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Oakhurst industries d/b/a Freund Baking Co. and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC619694 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks relief against Freund for failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu, and for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages pursuant to the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order. The Plaintiff further seeks equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under the Business and Professions Code Sections for unfair business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and/or refused to implement a policy and practice to pay any Plaintiff Class 1 hour's pay at the employees' regular rate of pay as premium compensation for its failure to provide rest and/or meal periods or to provide such rest and/or meal periods within the statutory time frame as a result of their scheduling policy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Morgan Glynn, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net mglynn@mahoney-law.net OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Cotner" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Eugene Cotner asks the Court to certify the lawsuit captioned Robert Eugene Cotner v. Carl Bear, Holly Baker, Joe Allbaugh, Mary Fallin and Does, Case No. 5:2016cv00195 (W.D. Okla.). The lawsuit alleges violations of prisoners' civil rights. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cEc6EKTU OLLIES 42ND: "Rong" Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Xiao Rong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ollies 42ND LLC d/b/a Ollie's Sichuan Restaurant, Tsu Y. Wang, Isabell Yuet Ming Ng a.k.a Angie, Chih Chou Yu, E Feng Lee, Jen Hwa Kao, Mel Lee Law, John Doe and Jane Doe l-10, Defendants, Case No. 652547/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for systematic and class-wide violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, whether at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located in West 42nd Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: {718) 353 8588 Facsimile: {718) 353 6288 OOMA INC: Faces Class Actions Related to 2015 IPO ------------------------------------------------- Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that Michael Barnett filed on January 14, 2016, a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the Company's Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and the Company expects these additional complaints to be consolidated with the Barnett complaint. The Company said, "The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus we filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The complaints allege that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper." "Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and we are vigorously defending against the Securities Litigations and will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on our current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that are reasonably possible to result from the Securities Litigations are not reasonably estimable." Ooma is a provider of innovative communications solutions and other connected services to small business, home, and mobile users. PELLA CORPORATION: "Zeigler" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514 ---------------------------------------------------------- Harold Zeigler, husband, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Bonnie Zeigler, wife, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Pella Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00406, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the District Court of South Carolina (Charleston). The South Carolina District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01472-DCN to the proceeding. The Zeigler case is consolidated in MDL No. 2514, re: Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The lead case is 2:14-mn-00001-DCN. The Assigned Judge is Honorable David C. Norton. The Pella Corporation is a window and door manufacturer company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Hills, Esq. Varnum LLP (Grand Haven) 233 Washington Ave., Ste. 205 Grand Haven, MI 49417 Telephone: (616) 846 7100 E-mail: mehills@varnumlaw.com PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Apel" Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- Performance Sports Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that on March 18, 2016, Brian Apel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company said, "The complaint alleges that we and certain of our current and former executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Choonoo" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. The case is captioned Barrat Choonoo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-02581-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May 6, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Susan D. Wigenton. Phillips & Cohen delivers measurably superior collection services across a host of industries and service sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, N.J. 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products ------------------------------------------------------ Pilgrim's Pride Corp., a Waco, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 5,176,844 pounds of fully cooked chicken products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The scope of this recall expansion now includes a variety of chicken products that may be contaminated with extraneous metal materials. The chicken products were produced on various dates between May 6, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and 6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a General Tso's Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016, 7/10/2016, and 8/6/2016 and packaging dates of 5/6/2015, 7/10/2015, and 8/6/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 2 - 5-lb clear bags of "Sweet Georgia Brand Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Meat" with a use by/sell by date of 5/6/2016 and a packaging date of 5/6/2015. --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and 6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Sweet Sriracha Glaze" with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and 8/6/2016 and packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015. --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15-lb clear bags of "Fully Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips With Teriyaki Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 12/3/2016 and 8/10/2016 and packaging dates of 12/3/2015 and 8/10/2015. --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and 6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Japanese Cherry Blossom Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and 8/6/2016 and packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015. --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15 lb clear bags of "73002 Green Dragon Fully Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips with New Orleans Brand Sauce" with a use by/sell by date of 08/10/2016; and a packaging date of 08/10/2015.; --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and 6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Tangerine Sauce" with a use by/sell by date of 8/6/2016 and a packaging date of 8/6/2015. On April 26, 2016, Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately 4,527,300 pounds of fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on various dates from Aug. 21, 2014 to March 1, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6145 Gold Kist Farms Menu Right Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Nuggets Breaded Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 05/28/2016, and 04/27/2016 and packaging dates of 05/28/2015 and 04/27/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6253 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Strip Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 04/27/2016 and 08/06/2016, and packaging dates of 04/27/2015 and 08/06/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6353 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Breakfast Chicken Patties" with use/by sell by dates of 09/17/2016 and 09/21/2016 and packaging dates 09/17/2015 and 09/21/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6654 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Chicken Patty" with use by/sell by dates of 05/11/2016, 06/05/2016, and 08/21/2015, and packaging dates of 05/11/2015, 06/05/2015, and 08/21/2014. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "66660 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded Chicken Patty" with use by/sell by date of 07/18/2016 and packaging date of 07/18/2015. --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "69160 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty Fritters" with use/by sell by dates of 08/19/2016 and 09/25/2016, and packaging dates of 8/19/2015 and 09/25/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "70340 Pierce Chicken Fully Cooked Breaded Chicken Tenderloins" with a use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 09/25/2016, and 11/09/2016, and packaging dates of 09/28/2015, 09/25/2015, and 11/09/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "612100 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Nuggets Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 07/11/2016, 11/09/2016, and 11/25/2016 and packaging dates of 07/11/2015, 11/09/2015, and 11/25/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "615300 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken Nuggets Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/ sell by dates of 10/08/2016, 10/09/2016, 10/03/2016, 10/20/2016, 11/24/2016, 10/01/2016, 10/16/2016, 10/14/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015, 10/01/2015, 10/16/2015, 10/09/2015, 10/03/2015, 10/20/2015, 11/24/2015, and 10/14/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "625300 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken Strip Shaped Chicken Patties" with a use by/sell by date of 10/16/2016, and a packaging date of 10/16/2015. --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "633100 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Breakfast Chicken Breast Patties with Rib Meat" with a use by/sell by date of 10/03/2016, and a packaging date of 10/03/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "662100 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/07/2016 and 08/13/2016, and packaging dates of 10/07/2015 and 08/13/2015. --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "665400 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/06/2016, 07/24/2016, 07/01/2016, 07/25/2016, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016, 12/02/2016, 12/21/2016, and packaging dates of 10/06/2015, 07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 07/25/2015, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016, 12/02/2016, 12/21/2016. --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "666600 Gold Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/08/2016, 09/29/2015, 09/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015, 09/29/2015, 09/30/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92105 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN BREAST NUGGETS BREADED NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES WITH RIB MEAT" with a use/by sell by date of 05/28/2016, and a packaging date of 05/28/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92430 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED BREADED CHICKEN TENDERLOINS" with use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016, and packaging dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "93406 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN POPCORN STYLE CHICKEN PATTY FRITTERS" with a use by/sell by date of 05/28/2016 and a packaging date of 05/28/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "94208 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY BREADED CHICKEN PATTY" with a use by date of 07/18/2016 and a packaging date of 07/18/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96965 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN NUGGETS NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES" with a use by/sell by date of 10/14/2016 and a packaging date of 10/14/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96971 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN BREAST PATTIES WITH RIB MEAT" with a use by/sell by date of 10/08/2016 and a packaging date of 10/08/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96973 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of 07/24/2016, 07/01/2016, 12/02/2016, 09/12/2016, and packaging dates of 07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 12/02/2015, 09/12/2015. --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96978 Sweet Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY BREADED CHICKEN PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of 10/08/2016 and 9/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015 and 9/30/2016. Additional information on production dates and case codes can be found here. On April 7, 2016, Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately 40,780 pounds of fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on Oct. 5, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- 20-lb. cardboard boxes containing two, 10-lb. clear plastic bags of fully cooked chicken nuggets labeled as "GOLD KIST FARMS Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty Fritters" with package codes 5278105021, 5278105022, 5278105023, 5278105000, and 5278105001. The products subject to recall bears establishment number "EST. 20728" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped for institutional use nationwide. According to Pilgrim's Pride Corp. records, schools have purchased products through the company's commercial channels. The problem was first discovered after the firm received several consumer complaints regarding plastic contamination of the chicken nuggets. The firm notified FSIS personnel of the issue on April 6, 2016. FSIS personnel identified more affected product types and dates of production after investigating additional consumer complaints of foreign material contamination received by the recalling firm. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the products are no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact James Brown, Consumer Relations Manager, at (800) 321-1470. Media with questions about the recall can contact Cameron Bruett, Head of Corporate Affairs, at (970) 506-7801. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Sperber" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. The case is captioned Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02346 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Portfolio Recovery Associates is a large debt collection company that specializes in buying delinquent credit accounts. The Plaintiff appears pro se. PROMOSYNTHESIS LLC: "Henryhand" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arriane Henryhand, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Promosynthesis LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation; Office Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16814763 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and liquidated relief, pursuant to the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide them with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for unprovided meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. The Defendant is a labor contractor company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setarah, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tomas@setarahlaw.com PROVIDENCE CENTER: Certification of Class of Therapists Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional certification of the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action styled DARLENE A. D'AREZZO, OLIVIA M. HOWARD, and JOELLE A. DEPEYROT, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. THE PROVIDENCE CENTER, INC., alias, Case No. 2015-120-M-LDA (D.R.I.). The Plaintiffs also move for Court facilitation of notice pursuant to Section 216(B) of the Labor Code. The proposed collective action is brought on behalf of all current and former individuals employed by the Defendant as purported Fee- For-Service Therapists (or other comparable positions), who were subject to these common practices and or policies of the Defendant, at any time from three years before the filing of the Complaint to the present: a) Who were paid under a purported "fee for service" arrangement or other similar arrangement; and, b) Who were required to perform tasks and/or otherwise perform work not included within the scope of the work for which "fees for service" were paid under their contract of employment and for which they were not compensated. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tq9Q3K8D The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. 2374 Post Road, Suite 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-9690 Facsimile: (401) 739-9040 E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com QUALITY POLE: "Villalongo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Villalongo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quality Pole Inspection & Maintenance, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00025(S.D. Tex., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid wages; overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at the applicable time-and-a-half rate; equal amount as liquidated damages; reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses; and other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According the complaint, the Defendant's compensation policy violates the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in a week. Quality Pole provides inspection, maintenance, and GIS reporting for wooden, concrete, and metal poles and tower. The Plaintiff is represented by: MARTIN A. SHELLIST RICARDO J. PRIETO SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621 2277 Facsimile: (713) 621 0993 E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net RADNET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kavanagh" Class Suit in Calif. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Kavanagh, an individual and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Radnet Mangement, Inc., a business entity, exact form unknown, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC619966 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, injunctive relief, and any other remedy, under the Labor Code. According to the complaint, the fact that Plaintiff was required to attend physiotherapy appointments during work hours apparently did not sit well with the Employer Defendants. Specifically, Ms. Wasserman harassed and discriminated against Plaintiff due to her disability, this included, but was not limited to: telling Plaintiff she could not use sick time for physiotherapy; and telling Plaintiff that if she takes more time off for therapy, then she will be fired. The Defendant is engaged in operating medical diagnostic imaging facilities in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy B. Sottile, Esq. SOTTILE & BALTAXE 4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 889 0050 Facsimile: (818) 889 6050 RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Etienne" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned Esther Etienne, as assignee of individually and on behalf of all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Reliant Capital is a full service account receivable management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned Rivkah Levy, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02366 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). Reliant Capital is a full service account receivable management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791 4400 Facsimile: (516) 791 4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com RBC CAPITAL: Defending Against Investor Suits in N.Y., Quebec ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Short Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that RBC Capital Markets, LLC is defending a pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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. 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. RESONANT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated 2nd Amended Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (VBKx), and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs." "On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint. In an order dated February 8, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. "On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. The plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, or the Class Period, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. "The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. "On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. It is not known when the court will rule on the motion." RJ REYNOLDS: $4.75-Mil. Settlement in "Sateriale" Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Los Angeles approved a $4.75 million settlement of a class action accusing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco of failing to honor its promise that smokers could exchange "Camel Cash" certificates for merchandise. The case captioned, AMANDA SATERIALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Defendant, CASE No. CV 09 08394 CAS (SSx)(C.D. Cal.). A copy of Judge Christina S. Snyder's Final Judgment dated May 5 is available at https://is.gd/CmVTwD from Leagle.com. Attorneys for Defendant R.J. Reynolds: Marc K. Callahan, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. Ann T. Rossum, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612.4408 Telephone: +1.949.851.3939 Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539 E-mail: javogt@jonesday.com - and - Geoffrey K. Beach, Esq. Howell A. Burkhalter, Esq. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3504 Facsimile: (336) 733-8437 E-mail: hburkhalter@wcsr.com ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Securities Antitrust Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc remains a defendant in the US Treasury securities antitrust litigation, according to Royal Bank's Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Beginning in July 2015, numerous class action antitrust complaints were filed in US federal courts against a number of primary dealers of US Treasury securities, including RBS Securities Inc. The complaints allege that the defendants rigged the US Treasury securities auction bidding process to deflate prices at which they bought such securities and colluded to increase the prices at which they sold such securities to plaintiffs. The complaints assert claims under the US antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act on behalf of persons who transacted in US Treasury securities or derivatives based on such instruments, including futures and options. On 8 December 2015, all pending matters were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc remains a defendant in the interest rate swaps antitrust litigation, it said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On 25 November 2015, RBS plc and other members of the Group, as well as a number of other interest rate swap dealers, were named as defendants in a class action antitrust complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on 18 February 2016. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the US antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for interest rate swaps through various means and thereby caused inflated bid-ask spreads for interest rate swaps, to the alleged detriment of the plaintiff class. RBS anticipates moving to dismiss the claims asserted in these matters. ROYAL CANIN: Bid for Certification of Class Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 13, 2016, in the case entitled Shaun Fauley v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-02170 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. The minute entry states that: -- Defendants' motion to modify stay is denied; -- Plaintiff's amended "Damasco" motion for class certification is denied as moot; and -- status hearing is set for May 31, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Lbmq6Dl SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in D. Vermont ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation. The case is captioned James D. Sullivan, Leslie Addison, Sharyn Jones, and Bishop Robin Hood Greene, individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-gwc (D. Vt., May 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford. Saint-Gobain Performance provides innovative product solutions- flexible tubing, gaskets & seals, hoses & fittings, pumps, and valves. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David F. Silver, Esq. BARR, STERNBERG, MOSS, LAWRENCE & SILVER, P.C. 507 Main Street Bennington, VT 05201 Telephone: (802) 442 6341 Facsimile: (802) 442 1151 E-mail: dsilver@barrsternberg.com - and - Emily J. Joselson, Esq. James W. Swift, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 111 South Pleasant Street P.O. Drawer 351 Middlebury, VT 05753-0351 Telephone: (802) 388 6356 Facsimile: (802) 388 6149 E-mail: ejoselson@langrock.com jswift@langrock.com - and - Patrick J. Bernal, Esq. Robert E. Woolmington, Esq. WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL & BERNAL, P.C. 4900 Main Street P.O. Box 2748 Manchester Center, VT 05255 Telephone: (802) 362 2560 Facsimile: (802) 362-7109 E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com rew@wittenetal.com - and - Timothy M. Andrews , Esq. BARR, STERNBERG, MOSS, LAWRENCE & SILVER, P.C. 507 Main Street Bennington, VT 05201 Telephone: (802) 442-6341 Facsimile: (802) 442-1151 E-mail: tandrews@barrsternberg.com SENIORSITTERS INC: "Schreckengost" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gioia Schreckengost and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Seniorsitters, Inc., Defendant, the Plaintiff, v. the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00566-CRE (W.D. Penn., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages from harms arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law (PWPCL). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid overtime wages which the Defendant willfully refused to pay for all hours worked over 40 per week during their employment with Defendant. Seniorsitters helps elderly person's daily living needs including meals, shopping, hygiene, housekeeping, transportation and safety. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. Nelson D. Berardinelli, Esq. KRAEMER, MANES & ASSOCIATES LLC US Steel Tower 600 Grant St., Suite 660 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 626 5565 E-mail: ep@lawkm.com nb@lawkm.com SHELL OIL: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- James Reynolds, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shell Oil Company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01276 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Shell Oil pays some its workers a flat amount for each day they work. Although these workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week, Shell does not pay them overtime. Shell is a United States-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a multinational major oil company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Telecopier: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Certiorari Already Due ---------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that SJI's Petition for Certiorari was due for filing on April 29, 2016. On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non- monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed a motion to stay the Mandate of the Second Circuit pending SJI's filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 5, 2015, the District Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roehmer for pretrial and to hear and report on dispositive motion proceedings. On February 5, 2016, SJI filed with the Supreme Court of the United States an application for extension to file its Petition for Certiorari. On February 9, 2016, the application was granted. SJI's Petition for Certiorari was due for filing on April 29, 2016. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Tapia" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Naomi Tapia moves to certify two classes of hourly employees in her lawsuit against Defendant Zale Delaware Inc. for alleged violations of California's labor laws and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California grants the motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, such that a class action is a superior method for adjudicating the State law claims. Plaintiff has also met the standard to conditionally certify a class under the FLSA. Plaintiff seeks to certify a California class of 1,600 current and former hourly, nonexempt employees. Plaintiff identifies six issues: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide wage statements that accurately state the overtime rate; (3) failure to provide a timely meal period, alteration of records, and failure to pay the statutory penalty; (4) unlawful meal period policy; (5) unlawful rest period policy; and (6) a derivative claim for former employees. Plaintiff also seeks to certify a nationwide class of 20,000 retail workers, based on her allegation that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that prior to the acquisition of Zale Corporation, it was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. A copy of the Court's April 6 Order is available at https://is.gd/3C2yJJ from Leagle.com. Naomi Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Lara Ann Prodanovich, Esq. Clint S. Engleson, Esq. Sullivan Law Group, LLP 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Zale Delaware Inc., Defendant, represented by Holger C Grossman Besch -- hbesch@seyfarth.com -- Brian Patrick Long -- bplong@seyfarth.com -- Kristen Michelle Agnew -- kagnew@seyfarth.com -- and Michael F. Marino, III -- mmarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice. SIGNET JEWELERS: Appeal in Delaware Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware in the litigation challenging the company's acquisition of Zale Corporation remains pending. Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery, which is pending with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SKY CHEFS: "Donnelly" Suit Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Donnelly, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sky Chefs, Inc., a Delaware business entity, the Defendant, Case No. CIV538561 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks restitution, damages, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Donnelly worked for the Defendant for nearly 15 years, from October 12, 2000 to June, 2015, as the regional Human Resources Manager for the San Jose and San Francisco areas. The Defendant allegedly exhibited a pattern, practice, and uniform administration of illegal corporate policies with respect to employee compensation. Sky Chefs is a global leader in airline catering. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962 3777 Facsimile: (323) 962 3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com SPARK ENERGY: Defending Against "Melville" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to file a response to class action complaint in due course in the case, John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. SPARK ENERGY: June 3 Hearing on "Amaya" Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has set a hearing date of June 3, 2016 to hear any Motion for Class Certification that Plaintiffs may file in the case, Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC. Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers in California. On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on April 27, 2016, Judge Jeffrey S. White denied the motion filed by Spark Energy Gas to dismiss all claims in the first amended complaint and to compel arbitration of the claims of plaintiff Barbara Gehrke. Judge White granted the plaintiffs' administrative motion to continue the schedule for the briefing and hearing of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge White found that the plaintiffs have shown good cause for continuing the class certification hearing. Additionally, Judge White agreed with the plaintiffs that the question of whether to amend the complaint to substitute proposed plaintiff Gabino Ortiz for deceased plaintiff Margaret Smith should be resolved prior to briefing on class certification. The case is, ARTURO AMAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPARK ENERGY GAS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02326-JSW (N.D. Cal.). Arturo Amaya, Barbara Gehrke, Gabino Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Beatrice Oluwayemisi Yakubu -- byakubu@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman, LLP, Steven Richard Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice & Gillian Leigh Wade, Milstein Adelman, LLP. Spark Energy Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Carter Thomas -- jthomas@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Roland Matthias -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Michelle D. Pector -- mpector@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice & Paul G. Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice. Spark Energy Gas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael Roland Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Joshua Carter Thomas, Baker Hostetler LLP & Michelle D. Pector, Baker Hostetler, LLP. SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defending "Marchelos" Complaint in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending the complaint by Peter Marchelos. On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this action. The claim of one of the two plaintiffs was resolved for $1,701. The Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit. The Company is a national full-service mobile and loyalty marketing agency that offers a means for small and large business owners alike to better connect with their consumers and generate sales. SPOKEO INC: Split Supreme Court Rejects "Robins" FCRA Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a divided Supreme Court on May 16 held that Internet search engines that post inaccurate information about people cannot be sued unless the errors cause actual harm. With their 6-2 ruling, the justice threw out an Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of a Virginia man who sued Spokeo.com, a search engine that aggregates information about individuals, after it posted an online profile about him that was rife with errors. Thomas Robins claimed the Spokeo profile was wrong about his age, his level of education, his employment history and his marital status. According to his Spokeo profile, Robins' had a graduate degree, was employed and making serious money, and was married with children. In reality, at the time his profile appeared, he was single, unemployed, and looking for work. Robins sued Spokeo in 2010, claiming in a class action filed under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act that the profile hurt his job prospects. The Act which requires consumer reporting agencies to offer accurate information. Under its terms, Robins stood to collect damages of up to $1,000 for each error, without having to show they caused him any harm. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright dismissed Robins's first complaint for lack of standing, and eventually did the same with an amended complaint. The judge found that Robins had failed to show that he had suffered any actual harm. In February 2014, a Ninth Circuit panel revived the case, holding, in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, that "The statutory cause of action does not require a showing of actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations," Judge wrote for the panel. "When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages," he added. But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that a person cannot show an injury simply by claiming a "bare procedural violation" of the credit reporting statute. "Congress' role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in- fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right," Alito wrote. Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. For that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." But Alito went on to acknowledge, in the very next paragraph of his opinion, that "the risk of real harm" could be enough. "For example, the law has long permitted recovery by certain tort victims even if their harms may be difficult to prove or measure," he explained. "Just as the common law permitted suit in such instances, the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact. "In the context of this particular case, these general principles tell us two things: On the one hand, Congress plainly sought to curb the dissemination of false information by adopting procedures designed to decrease that risk," Alito said. "On the other hand, Robins cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation. A violation of one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm." He concluded: "Because the Ninth Circuit failed to fully appreciate the distinction between concreteness and particularization, its standing analysis was incomplete. It did not address the question framed by our discussion, namely, whether the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement." The ruling is considered a positive development for scores of social media and technology firms, who feared that lawsuits over minor mistakes could cost them hundreds of millions in damages. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. In her dissent Ginsburg said Robins had shown he was harmed because Spokeo's inaccuracies created the false impression he was overqualified for work he was seeking or that he might be unwilling to relocate for a job due to family. "Robins would not qualify, the Court observes, if he alleged a 'bare' procedural violation . . . one that results in no harm, for example, "an incorrect zip code," Ginsburg wrote. "Far from an incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate representations that could affect his fortune in the job market. Quoting from an Amici Curiae brief filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology, Ginsburg continued: "Spokeo's inaccuracies bore on Robins' 'ability to find employment by creating the erroneous impression that he was overqualified for the work he was seeking, that he might be unwilling to relocate for a job due to family commitments, or that his salary demands would exceed what prospective employers were prepared to offer him.'" Therefore, she said, " I . . . see no utility in returning this case to the Ninth Circuit to underscore what Robins' complaint already conveys concretely: Spokeo's misinformation 'cause[s] actual harm to [his] employment prospects.'" A copy of the Supreme Court decision dated May 16 is available at https://is.gd/C3OOe7 from Leagle.com. Counsel to Robins: JAY EDELSON RAFEY S. BALABANIAN RYAN D. ANDREWS ROGER PERLSTADT EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 - and - MICHAEL H. PARK CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 247-8006 - and - WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY J. MICHAEL CONNOLLY CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: (703) 243-9423 E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com - and - PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC Ten Post Offi ce Square, 8th Floor South PMB #706 Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 227-0548 Counsel to Spokeo: JOHN NADOLENCO Mayer Brown LLP 350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-5173 - and - ANDREW J. PINCUS ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI STEPHEN LILLEY Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 263-3000 - and - DONALD M. FALK Mayer Brown LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel: (650) 331-2000 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation: DEBORAH J. LA FETRA Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: dlafetra@pacificlegal.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae ACA International: BRIAN MELENDEZ DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 4000 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 486-1589 E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com Counsel to Amicus Curiae Trans Union LLC: STEPHEN J. NEWMAN JULIA B. STRICKLAND JOSEPH E. STRAUSS STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 556-5800 E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com Counsel to Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the International Association of Defense Counsel as Amici Curiae: KATE COMERFORD TODD TYLER R. GREEN NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC. 1615 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20062 - and - MARY-CHRISTINE SUNGAILA SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - and - ROY T. ENGLERT, JR. ARIEL N. LAVINBUK ERIC A. WHITE ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 411L Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 775-4500 E-mail: renglert@robbinsrussell.com Counsel to Amici Curaie eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google, Inc., and Yahoo! Inc., in support of Spokeo: FELICIA H. ELLSWORTH ERIC F. FLETCHER WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 - and - PATRICK J. CAROME WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 663-6000 E-mail: patrick.carome@wilmerhale.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in support of petitioner: DANIEL J. MCLOON JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 489-3939 - and - MEIR FEDER RAJEEV MUTTREJA JONES DAY 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 326-3939 E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Consumer Data Industry Association, in support of Spokeo: ANNE P. FORTNEY ALLEN H. DENSON HUDSON COOK, LLP 1020 19th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 223-6930 E-mail: afortney@hudco.com Counsel for Amici Curiae, The National Association of Professional Background Screeners; The National Consumer Reporting Association; and Precheck, in support of Spokeo: ANDY N. FERGUSON 4000 Castlerock Rd Norman, OK 73072 Tel: (405) 698-0263 E-mail: Andy.Ferguson@ANF-Legal.com - and - CHRISTOPHER A. MOHR MEYER, KLIPPER & MOHR, PLLC 923 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 637-0850 E-mail: chrismohr@mkmdc.com Counsel for Amici Curiae, New England Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, in support of Spokeo: Benjamin G. Robbins Martin J. Newhouse, President New England Legal Foundation 150 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2504 Tel: (617) 695-3660 E-mail: benrobbins@nelfonline.org Counsel for Amicus Curiae, DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar: MARY MASSARON ROSS HILARY A. BALLENTINE PLUNKETT COONEY 38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Tel: (313) 983-4801 E-mail: mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com - and - J. MICHAEL WESTON President of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar LEDERER WESTON CRAIG, PLC 118 Third Ave. SE, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1927 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Tel: (319) 365-1184 E-mail: mweston@lwclawyers.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae, United States: MEREDITH FUCHS General Counsel TO-QUYEN TRUONG Deputy General Counsel JOHN R. COLEMAN Assistant General Counsel NANDAN M. JOSHI KRISTIN BATEMAN Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Washington, D.C. 20552 - and - DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR. Solicitor General Counsel of Record MALCOLM L. STEWART Deputy Solicitor General ANTHONY A. YANG Assistant to the Solicitor General Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov Tel: (202) 514-2217 STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for July 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin ruled that a status hearing is set for July 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the lawsuit titled Stacy Pincus v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04705 (N.D. Ill.). Judge Durkin also ruled that a joint status report is to be filed on or before July 11, 2016. Counsel for the Plaintiff and for the Defendant that has been served with process or has appeared at least 28 days before that Status Hearing Date are ordered to meet not later than 14 days before the Status Hearing Date to comply with the provisions of Rules 26(f) and 26(a)(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District Court's Local Rule 26.1. Counsel for the parties are urged to undertake serious settlement efforts before the scheduled Status Hearing when no major investment in counsel's time (and client's money) has yet taken place, Judge Durkin stated. He added that if such efforts are unsuccessful, counsel should be prepared to attend the scheduled Status Hearing to discuss briefly their proposed discovery plan and other subjects appropriate for inclusion in the scheduling order as referred to in Rule 16(b). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0jmg39NF SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "Rosen" Suit in D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Summit Collection Services, Inc. The case is captioned Michael A. Rosen, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., and John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-02640-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kevin McNulty. Summit Collection is a small organization in the adjustment and collection services industry located in Ho Ho Kus, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, N.J. 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com SUNRUN INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit Over False Registration Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie L. Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Efren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI, L.P., Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. and Does 1- 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV538593 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 10, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. This securities class action was brought on behalf of all those who purchased Sunrun common stock pursuant or traceable to Sunrun's August 5, 2015 initial public stock offering (IPO). Immediately after NV Energy's filing with the Nevada PUC, Sunrun rushed to commence its IPO. On or about August 5, 2015, Sunrun, the Selling Stockholders, the Venture Capital Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants priced the IPO at $14 per share, filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO (Prospectus), which forms part of the Registration Statement, and sold 17.9 million shares of Sunrun common stock to the investing public. The complaint says the Registration Statement 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. Sunrun is a provider of residential solar electricity. The Plaintiff is represented by: James I. Jaconette, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 TAILORED BRANDS: Still Defends Lucas-Salerno Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit by David Lucas and Eric Salerno. On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees. "We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties jointly ask the Court for conditional certification, as a class action, of the lawsuit entitled RICKY DUCOTE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. TUBULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-02557 (S.D. Tex.). Mr. Ducote sued TSI alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, he alleges TSI paid day rate with no overtime pay for hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. He also alleges that other employees are owed overtime for the same reasons and, therefore, filed the Case as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TSI denies Mr. Ducotes' allegations and alleges it properly paid him all sums to which he was legally and contractually entitled. The Parties have agreed to stipulate to conditional certification of a class consisting of all TSI's: Field service employees (including but not limited to "Thread Reps," "Torque-Turn Operators," "Thread Inspectors," "Technicians," and other "Service Representatives") who were employed within the last 3 years and paid according to TSI's "daily rate" pay plan. The Parties have further agreed that the issuance of an approved notice is appropriate. Accordingly, the Parties jointly seek authorization to send their proposed notice and consent form to the potential class members and their proposed e-mail distribution language. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LJHNsnOg The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Carter Crow, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Fulbright Tower 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5218 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 E-mail: Carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Providing Indemnity in "Mathews" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., pursuant to contractual obligations, is providing indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in the case, Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil Division, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. This purported class action alleges a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the same allegations of the state attorney general that serve as the basis for the claims in the Herbal Supplements multidistrict litigation, and seeks certification of a class of Arkansas residents purportedly impacted by the allegations. The Company is not a party to this litigation but provides indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in this litigation. U S BANK: "Anderson" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------------------- Cleo Anderson and Dottie Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bancorp, the Defendant, Case No. 62-CV-16-00075, was removed from St. Francis County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00245-JM to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. James M. Moody Jr. U.S. Bank provides commercial banking services for individuals, businesses, and institutions. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Hodges, Esq. DAVID HODGES LAW OFFICE 212 Center Street, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-2400 Facsimile: (501) 374 8926 E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com - and - Louis A. Etoch, Esq. ETOCH LAW FIRM Post Office Box 100 Helena-West Helena, AR 72342-0100 Telephone: (870) 338-3591 Facsimile: (870) 338-7201 E-mail: louis@etochlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David L. Williams, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3740 Telephone: (501) 975-3109 Facsimile: (501) 975-3001 E-mail: david.williams@kutakrock.com UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned David Neuhaus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02279 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2016). United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services. The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STUDENT FUNDS: High Court Won't Hear Student-Loan Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a divided Supreme Court on May 16, declined to wade into a dispute over the rules governing the rehabilitation of student loans after a default, prompting a sharp rebuke from Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. Bryana Bible, of Ramsey County, Minnesota, obtained a student loan under the federal Family Education Loan Program and defaulted on that loan in 2012. Bible immediately entered into a loan rehabilitation program. As recounted in her complaint, Bible understood that her loan would be taken out of default if she made nine on-time payments within a ten-month period. Typically loan's like Bible's are held by a guaranty agency. Once the default is removed, it is generally resold to a commercial lender. Bible believed that under the terms of the rehabilitation program approved by the U.S. Department of Education, her payments would be "reasonable and affordable" in line with her current disposable income and expenses. She also stated she took that to mean she would not be charged collection fees as she made the payments to bring her loan up to date. However, she says rather than help her get her student loan back on track, defendant United Student Aid Funds improperly inflated the amount she owned by unlawfully imposing collection costs on each of her nine payments. Bible claimed she made nine payments of $450 each, from which United Student Aid Funds allocated $374 to the interest on her loan, and $76 to the allegedly unauthorized collection costs. As a result, she said, none of the money she paid was allocated to paying down the principle of her student loan. Bible said not only has this made it harder for her to repay her loan, but that if and when the defendant sold the loan to a private lender, the loan balance would be at least 18.5 percent higher than it should be. All this was done, she contended, because the "improperly inflated" balance will allow the defendant to receive a higher price for her loan from a private lender. Bible filed a class action against United Student Funds in April 2013, but a federal judge ultimately granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. In doing so the court reasoned that Bible's claims were preempted by the Higher Education Act, which does not provide a private right of action. The court also held in the alternative that Bible's claim failed on its face because both the Higher Education Act and the Federal Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note, the form governing her loan, expressly permit the imposition of collection fees against borrowers who default on their loans. The court went on to toss a RICO claim Bible had advanced, holding that he failed to show there was a scheme to defraud her or that the interstate mails or wires were used to carry out such a scheme. A divided Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that neither of Bible's claims was preempted by the Higher Education Act. In regard to her breach of contract claim, the three-judge appellate panel found there was no conflict between her claim and federal law. In fact, it said, Bible's interpretation of the applicable statutes and regulations was consistent with that of the secretary of education. As for RICO claim, the Seventh Circuit said Bible's allegations were sufficient to allow the case to proceed, "It remains to be seen whether she can marshal evidence to support her claim, but that's a matter for further proceedings in the district court," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton on behalf of the panel majority. While the two other members of the panel concurred with Hamilton to an extent both also expressed reservations, particularly in regard to the Education Department's interpretation of the rules regarding collection costs and whether the department's interpretation should be given deference. That was the critical question United Student Aid Funds wanted the Supreme Court to consider. The justice who declined to grant certiorari did not explain their rationale for doing so. But Justice Clarence Thomas blasted his colleagues, accusing them of choosing to sit "idly by" while "[h]e who writes a law" also "adjudges its violation" -- a line borrowed from an earlier dissent written by the late Antonin Scalia. Thomas said in his view, the question of deference to an agency's interpretation to its own rules as spelled out in two prior Supreme Court decisions, Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., is worthy of review. "The doctrine of Seminole Rock deference (or, as it is sometimes called, Auer deference) permits courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation 'unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,'" Thomas wrote. "Any reader of this Court's opinions should think that the doctrine is on its last gasp. Members of this Court have repeatedly called for its reconsideration in an appropriate case," he said, adding "The doctrine has metastasized . . . and today 'amounts to a transfer of the judge's exercise of interpretive judgment to the agency.'" This case, Thomas said, is emblematic of the failings of Seminole Rock deference. "Here, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit deferred to the Department of Education's interpretation of the regulatory scheme it enforces -- an interpretation set forth in an amicus brief that the Department filed at the invitation of the Seventh Circuit. For the reasons stated in Judge Daniel Manion's partial dissent, "the Department's interpretation is not only at odds with the regulatory scheme but also defies ordinary English. More broadly, by deferring to an agency's litigating position under the guise of Seminole Rock, courts force regulated entities like petitioner here to 'divine the agency's interpretations in advance,' lest they 'be held liable when the agency announces its interpretations for the first time' in litigation," Thomas wrote. "By enabling an agency to enact 'vague rules' and then to invoke Seminole Rock to 'do what it pleases in later litigation, the agency (with the judicial branch as its co-conspirator) 'frustrates the notice and predictability purposes of rulemaking, and promotes arbitrary government,'" he concluded. "This is the appropriate case in which to reevaluate Seminole Rock and Auer." The case is, UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. BRYANA BIBLE, 578 U. S. ____ (2016) WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Sheppard" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Mitch Sheppard, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Weatherford international, LLC f/k/a Weatherford International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01316 (D. Col., May 10, 2016), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the laws of the state of North Dakota. According to the complaint, Weatherford paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Class a set salary per week, plus a lump sum payment for every day they worked in the field, regardless of the number of hours that Plaintiff and the FLSA Class actually worked. Weatherford paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Class these payments, even though Plaintiff and the FLSA Class do not work a fixed regular number of hours in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Weatherford maintains its corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas. The Company provides equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation, completion, production, and intervention of oil and natural gas wells worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Megan L. Lindsey, Esq. EDELSON PC 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel: 303.357.4877 Fax: 312.589.6378 E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com mlindsey@edelson.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net akoropey@bm.net - and - David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 344 6690 Facsimile: (205) 344 6188 E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com WHOLE FOODS: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Bait & Switch Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas corporation; Whole Foods Market California, Inc. a California corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619312 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks actual damages; injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in misleading advertising practices; civil penalties; payment of costs; payment of attorney's fees; interest as permitted by law; and any other and further relief the court may deem proper. The lawsuit is about Whole Foods engaging in a classic bait and switch scheme. Whole Foods markets certain vintages of particular wines as having a high numerical rating, but when customers purchase those wines, they are actually given a different wine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Dybnis, Esq. Scott C. Glovsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY, APC 100 E. Corson Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 243 5598 Facsimile: (866) 243 2243 E-mail: adybnis@scottglovskylaw.com sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com ********* 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 * * *