/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 101 Headlines AARGON AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kelly" Suit Claims AB-INBEV: Beer Retailers Fined Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme ADVANCED MICRO: "Hatamian" May Not Produce Interview Notes ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Attempt to Moot Class Action Rejected AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baskette" Suit Over Carmike Merger ANTHEM INC: Faces "Conley" Class Suit Over Privacy Breach ARIZONA CARDINALS: Factors for Evaluating Class Settlement ART FASHION: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Palm Island Riots Enters Final Phase BANK OF AMERICA: "McLeod" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement BANKERS LIFE: Court Won't Certify New Class in "David" Suit BLS LIMOUSINE: Faces "Singley" Class Suit in Calif. Court BLUE BUFFALO: Paid $32MM Settlement into Escrow BLUE BUFFALO: Faces Ontario Suit Over Pet Food Ads BLUE CROSS: "McGill" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala. BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Langford" Seeks to Recover Minimum Pay CANADA: Settles Residential School Class Action for $50MM COACH: Settles Unpaid Overtime Class Action for $1.75MM DAIKIN NORTH: Dermatology Specialists File Suit Over Aircon Defect DAIRYAMERICA INC: Exhibit in "Carlin" Discovery Dispute Sealed DAVIS & DEVORE GROUP: "Barros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DESIGNER FRAGRANCES: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: "Krawczyk" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay DIRECTV INC: Class Action Over Early Termination Fees May Proceed DITECH FINANCIAL: "Kinnamon" Sues Over Illegal Cellphone Calls DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Seeking Indemnity from A Sure Wing DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in North. Dist. New York DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action DOLLAR TREE: Faces Wage Suit in Calif. by Assist. Store Managers DOLLAR TREE: Hourly Non-Exempt Employees Sue in Florida DOLLAR TREE: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Still Ongoing DOLLAR TREE: Massachusetts Suit Over Unpaid OT Pending DOLLAR TREE: Customer Class Suit Over Text Spam Pending DOLLAR TREE: Bag Checking Suit Pending in Calif. Court DOLLAR TREE: Employee Class Suit Over Seating Remains Pending DOLLAR TREE: Background Checks Class Suit in Virginia Pending EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Opposes Policy Holders' Class Cert. Bid FIFTH STREET: Oklahoma Police, Labaton Firm Lead Class Suit FIFTH STREET: Dismissal of "Craig" Action in Delaware Sought FIFTH STREET: Defending Securities Class Suits in New York FLORIDA: Citrus Canker Class Action Goes to Trial FORGIATO INC: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FUSHA 311: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GENENTECH INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages GIBCO MOTOR EXPRESS: "Stell" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court GREENER GROUP: Faces "Sanchez" Class Suit in Massachusetts GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HANNIBAL, IL: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Quality Issues HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Jarzyna's Bid for Reconsideration INTOUCH MOBILE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Financial Reports J.G. WENTWORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss J. SALERNO: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA J.M. HOLM: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA JAMIE'S WHALING: Responds to Whale-Watching Accident Class Action JUST LUNCH: Customer Files Class Action Against Houston Franchise LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Minnesota Over False Product Labels LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Bamboo Flooring MARYLAND: Silver Spring Residents Sue Over Purple Line Route MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of IPO Class Suit MDL 1203: Court Awards Atty. Fees, Expenses to Levin Fishbein MDL 2357: Court Rules on Zappos' Bid to Dismiss MEDSTAR HEALTH: Court Narrows Plaintiffs in Hospital Staff Suit MERCY HEALTH: "Grasle" Sues over Underfunded Retirement Fund MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of WARN Act Suit MILES ENTERPRISES: "Jabrani" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Bid in "Viceral" Due June 2 NEW YORK: Two Plaintiffs Withdraw Marathon Claims PACIFIC BELL: Order Striking "Rel" Class Allegations Reversed PADUCAH, KY: "Youngblood" Suit Dismissed PAYPAL INC: Court Strikes Objection to "Zepeda" Settlement PETRO RIVER: Donelson-Friend Suit Dismissed PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Cyber Claim Insurance Coverage Affirmed PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment for Magee & Peterson Granted PREMIER FOODS: Court to Hear Victims' Bread Cartel Claims PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: "Johnson" Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice RBC CAPITAL: Dragged in N.Y., Canadian Suits v. FX Dealers REDFIN CORP: Bid for Curative Notice in "Cruz" Denied ROCK CREEK: "Baldwin" Amended Complaint Dismissed SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied SHUTTERFLY: Settles Class Action Over Facial Recognition Tech SNYDER'S LANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Crocker" Discovery SPRINT CORP: Time to Respond to "Bekkerman" Suit Moved to June 6 SQUARE INC: "Levin" Action Goes to Arbitration STARBUCKS CORP: "Crittenden" Sues Over Under-filled Espresso STATE FARM: Bid to Vacate or Suspend Discovery Order Denied STERICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Service Fee Hike SUNEDISON INC: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 25 SUNRUN INC: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set TICKETMASTER: Provides Details on Class Action Settlement TORRAHOP INC: "Corrales" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violation TOSHIBA AMERICA: Award of $3,200 in Costs to Sklar Affirmed TRADE STREET: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway TRIAD GUARANTY: 30% of Settlement Fund Awarded to Lead Counsel TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Tow Service Fees TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Ohio Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Attorney Opposes Unsealing of Documents UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Sidesteps Core Issue VECTOR MARKETING: Supplemental Briefing Due May 20 in "Woods" WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Leal" Suit Denied WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Rules on Bid for Protective Order Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M's Bid to Exclude Bevis Testimony Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Compel Subpoena Compliance Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Rules on Jurisdisction Issue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers OK'd to Amend 3rd-Party Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Sawyer" to Maryland State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Directs Review of Workers' Claims Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "McKenzie" Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circuit Remands "Davidson" to State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reverses Summary Judgment in "Finerty" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bazor" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Loses Bids for Acquittal, New Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Reckless Conduct Claim Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Inked in Non-Occuptational Exposure Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take Home Death Nets $7-Mil. Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info After Mans Dies from Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 3 Cumberland Schools ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Timebomb Linked to Death of Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Shuts Down Over Asbestos Concerns ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Answers for Man's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Strike Expert Disclosures ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges Against Hotel ********* AARGON AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kelly" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Maziar Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aargon Agency, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01141-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumer's wireless telephone. Aargon Agency, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection agency in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, PA Suite 302, 20803 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Douglas J. Campion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION 17150 Via Del Campo, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 299-2091 Facsimile: (619) 858-0034 - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235 Hollywood, FL 33019-2930 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Seth Lehrman, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, PL Suite 2, 425 N Andrews Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com AB-INBEV: Beer Retailers Fined Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Chamlee, writing for Eater, reports that German beer retailers have been slapped with big fines after being caught colluding with beer giant AB-InBev in a price-fixing scheme. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Germany's Federal Cartel Office has fined several retailers a combined total of EUR90.5 million ($103.2 million)" over the price-fixing scandal. WSJ reports that the news comes at an especially embarrassing time for the country, which is currently celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reinheitsgebot, or beer purity law, which is meant to protect consumers from inflated beer prices. The retailers were found to have colluded with the German subsidiary of AB-InBev to fix beer prices -- specifically for its Beck's, Hasseroeder and Franziskaner brands -- between 2006 and 2009. AB-InBev itself was not fined, as its cooperation helped authorities in the inquiry. The probe also fined one German retailer for fixing the price of Haribo candy and another for fixing the price of coffee. This isn't the first time AB-InBev has faced criticism over its "German" beers recently. Last year, the company was paid out millions of dollars following a class-action lawsuit claiming it tricked consumers into thinking Beck's, which has been made in St. Louis since 2012, was brewed in Germany. ADVANCED MICRO: "Hatamian" May Not Produce Interview Notes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BABAK HATAMIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv- 00226-YGR (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the defendants' motion to compel the interview notes and reports and witness communications. The judge also declined to order the production of the plaintiffs' counsel's confidential witness interview policies and procedures as they are not relevant. In the securities fraud class action, the plaintiffs contended that Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") made misrepresentations regarding the launch of its "Llano" microprocessor, and in particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing plant's chip yield. As is the practice in such actions in which the plaintiffs must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of the PSLRA, the operative complaint relies upon statements from "confidential witnesses" who are generally identified by job title, employer, and dates of employment, but are not named. The confidential witnesses are mostly former employees of AMD and of the entity that produces the Llano chip at issue. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after one confidential witness (CW1) recanted his earlier statements. The defendants subsequently moved to strike certain complaint allegations based on evidence that other confidential witnesses had recanted their earlier statements. In their opposition to the defendants' motion to strike, the plaintiffs referenced, among other things, the plaintiffs' counsel's investigator's notes and interview reports of confidential witnesses in support of their argument that they had a good faith basis to make the complaint allegations. The district court denied the motion to strike. The parties then filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute pertaining to three categories of documents. The defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce (1) communications with the confidential witnesses referenced in the plaintiffs' complaints; (2) contemporaneous notes of interviews with the confidential witnesses, including "Interview Reports"; and (3) the plaintiffs' policies and procedures governing such interviews. The plaintiffs' written response did not dispute the relevance of the documents or contend that proportionality considerations render the discovery inappropriate. Instead, they contended that the documents at issue are shielded from disclosure as attorney work product. Having considered the parties' submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on May 5, 2016, Judge Corley declined to compel production of the witness interview notes, reports and communications as they are protected work product, the plaintiffs have not waived the protection, and the defendants have not demonstrated substantial need for the documents. Judge Corley also declined to compel production of the policies and procedures because, while not work product, they are not relevant to the merits of the case. A full-text copy of Judge Corley's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/M675nP from Leagle.com. Babak Hatamian, Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiffs, represented by Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Lisa T. Su, Richard A. Bergman, Defendants, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kala Sherman-Presser -- kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP. KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher -- mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B. Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann -- ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC. Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Attempt to Moot Class Action Rejected --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas F. McDaniel, Esq. -- nmcdaniel@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that last March, the United States Supreme Court held that a putative class action is not mooted when a defendant offers the named plaintiff complete relief but the plaintiff does not accept the offer. Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). That decision left open the question of whether a settlement offer -- coupled with an actual tender of complete relief -- would moot the action. The Ninth Circuit has now answered: it does not. In Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Ninth Circuit held that the named plaintiff's individual claims were not mooted even though the defendant had offered complete relief and placed the funds in escrow for the plaintiff pending entry of final judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff's individual claims are not mooted unless the plaintiff "actually receives" complete relief. The Ninth Circuit further held that even if a named plaintiff's individual claims were mooted by a judgment affording complete relief, the plaintiff would still be entitled to a "fair opportunity" to seek class certification. Chen is an important development because it rejects one possible technique to dismiss class actions by "picking off" class representatives. Class defendants outside the Ninth Circuit will likely test the limits of Campbell-Ewald by tendering offers of complete relief to named plaintiffs. In fact, some defendants have successfully employed the technique noted in Campbell-Ewald. Class defendants in the Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, face an even greater challenge post-Chen. Background In Chen, the named plaintiffs alleged that Allstate had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- the same statute at issue in Campbell-Ewald -- by making several unsolicited automated calls to them. Before the plaintiffs moved for class certification, Allstate made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 for complete monetary and injunctive relief. One plaintiff accepted the offer; the other did not. After the unaccepted offer lapsed, Allstate moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, and Allstate appealed. While Allstate's interlocutory appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald. Although the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's pick-off attempt in that case, the Court left open the possibility that a case could be mooted if the settlement funds are deposited into an account for the plaintiff, and judgment entered for the plaintiff in that amount. Testing the hypothetical posed by Campbell-Ewald, Allstate deposited $20,000 in a bank escrow account pending entry of a final judgment that would direct payment to the plaintiff and enter the injunction. The Ninth Circuit's Decision Allstate argued that (1) the proposed judgment afforded the plaintiff complete relief on his individual claims; (2) the district court should be required to enter judgment on those terms, and after final judgment is entered, the plaintiff's claims would become moot; and (3) once the individual claims are moot, the existence of class allegations alone would not preserve a live controversy, and the entire action should be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Allstate on the first point, but rejected Allstate's other arguments. First, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Allstate's offer of judgment would provide complete relief. The plaintiff argued that the offer did not provide complete relief because it did not include an admission of liability. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, reasoning that the complaint sought only damages and injunctive relief, not an admission or declaration of liability. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that only nationwide injunctive relief would be sufficient to address the alleged harms. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the proffered injunctive relief would be inadequate, or that he could obtain broader relief after a trial on the merits. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that Allstate's offer of complete relief did not moot the plaintiff's individual claims. The court interpreted Campbell-Ewald and prior Ninth Circuit decisions as holding that an individual claim becomes moot only when a plaintiff "actually receives" the relief sought. In this case, the court determined that the named plaintiff did not actually receive the relief, because the district court did not enter a final judgment requiring Allstate to relinquish its interest in the deposited funds. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baskette" Suit Over Carmike Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- RAY BASKETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. FLEMING, ROLAND C. SMITH, S. DAVID PASSMAN III, JEFFREY W. BERKMAN, PATRICIA A. WILSON, MARK R. BELL, SEAN T. ERWIN. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. and CONGRESS MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC., Case 4:16-cv-00170-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 10, 2016), was filed as a result of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which AMC will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. for $30.00 per share, in a transaction valued at approximately $1.1 billion. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, including AMC Entertainment Inc., American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and its subsidiaries, is engaged in the theatrical exhibition business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Phone: (770) 200-3104 Fax: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com - and - Shane T. Rowley Stephanie A. Bartone LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: 203-992-4523 Fax: 212-363-7171 ANTHEM INC: Faces "Conley" Class Suit Over Privacy Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Joan Conley, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Anthem Health Plans Of New Hampshire, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Case No. 5:16-cv-02475- LHK (D.N.H., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to adequately secure the Plaintiff's and other insureds' sensitive personal identifying information including, inter alia, social security numbers, names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and employment information. Anthem, Inc. is the largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire, Inc. provides individual and group health insurance policies to consumers throughout New Hampshire. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward K. O'Brien, Esq. O'BRIEN LAW FIRM, PC 77 Sundial Avenue, Ste 148W Manchester, NH 03103 Telephone: (603) 672-3800 E-mail: eobrien@ekoblaw.com ARIZONA CARDINALS: Factors for Evaluating Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to be evaluated for any proposed class settlement in the case captioned ETOPIA EVANS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, ET AL., Defendants, No. C 16-01030 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Judge Alsup advised counsel to review the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, which is available on the website for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance. Judge Alsup also reminded counsel that the main focus will be on what is in the best interest of absent class members. A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's May 9, 2016 notice is available at https://is.gd/i3qt4A from Leagle.com. NFL Clubs, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Ariel Jacobs -- rjacobs@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Benjamin C. Block -- bblock@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice. Etopia Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Francis Murphy, Jr. -- josephmurphy@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, Steven Donald Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, William Nelson Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, Alexander Williams, Jr. -- awilliams@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White, Andrew C White -- awhite@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC,Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp, Mel T Owens -- mowens@nbolaw.com -- Namanny Byrne and Owens, pro hac vice, Phillip J. Closius -- pclosius@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, pro hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. Robert Massey, Troy Sadowski, Christopher Goode, Darryl Ashmore, Jerry Wunsch, Eric King, Alphonso Carreker, Steven Lofton, Duriel Harris, Jeffrey Graham, Mel Renfro, Cedric Killings, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph Francis Murphy, Jr., Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Stephen G. Grygiel, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, Steven Donald Silverman, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, Alexander Williams, Jr., Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White, Andrew C White, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC,Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp, Mel T Owens, Namanny Byrne and Owens, pro hac vice, Phillip J. Closius, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, pro hac vice & Stuart A. Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills Inc., Panthers Football, LLC, d/b/a Carolina Panthers, The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club LTD., PDB Sports, Ltd, The Detroit Lions, Inc., Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston Holdings, LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars, LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc, Miami Dolphins LTD, Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, New England Patriots, LLC, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets LLC, The Oakland Raiders, LLP, Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, Pittsburgh Steelers, LLC, The St. Louis Rams LLC, Chargers Football Company, LLC, Forty Niners Football Company LLC, Football Northwest LLC, d/b/a Seattle Seahawks, Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Tennessee Football, Inc., Pro-Football Inc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin C. Block, Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice. ART FASHION: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Art Fashion Corporation d/b/a Roberto Cavalli and/or www.robertocavalli.com, Case No. 1:16-cv-21637-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Art Fashion Corporation operates a Roberto Cavalli Clothing Store in Miami Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Palm Island Riots Enters Final Phase ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Chen, writing for ABC, reports that the man convicted of inciting riots on Palm Island in north Queensland in 2004 hopes his class action against the State Government will improve the treatment of Indigenous people in custody. The Federal Court case is entering into its final stages after beginning hearings last September. The court has heard from residents and police officers on the events leading up to the death in custody of Cameron Doomadgee more than a decade ago and the following riots. Lex Wotton, who is suing the State Government for its handling of the situation, said he hoped the case would highlight the treatment of Indigenous people in custody. "That's where the politicians need to respond to that, all you can do is put up the idea and hopefully things will happen in that area," he said. "Hopefully things will happen in that area, we can try and address the over representation of the Indigenous population within the correction and justice system." He said if he won the case, the Palm Island community would benefit. "Everyone wants a good outcome in the sense, whether it's financial or material gains, the state would have to compensate, and then hopefully it would help the state to address the underlying issues of what has taken shape [on Palm Island]," he said. The next hearings in Townsville will run for three days. Chris Ronalds SC, representing Mr Wotton, told the court police had violated the human rights of Palm Island residents by failing to provide a proper investigation into the death of Mr. Doomadgee. "Competent investigations into deaths in custody are vital to the protection of the public," he told the court in Townsville. "[The police] didn't try, they didn't engage in providing services to Palm Island." BANK OF AMERICA: "McLeod" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement ---------------------------------------------------------- Gina McLeod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG16814887 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), seeks to recover reimbursement tor business expenses, and interest thereon, declaratory relief, equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code. Bank of America, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Kaufmann, Esq. David Pogrel, Esq. Elizabeth Gropman, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com dpogrel@leonardcarder.com - and - Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 100 Drakes Landing Road, Ste. 275 Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com BANKERS LIFE: Court Won't Certify New Class in "David" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CHRISTINE DAVID AND RODNEY CLURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No. C14-766RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of new agents. The defendant, Bankers Life and Casualty Co., is an insurance company that contracts with insurance sales agents to sell its products. The plaintiffs claim that Bankers agents are employees, entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA) 49.46. Prior to removal to the district court, the state court certified a class defined as: "All individuals who worked as agents for Bankers Life and Casualty Company in the State of Washington at any time between June 16, 2008 and December 2, 2013 and who were classified as independent contractors." On Bankers' motion, the district court decertified the class, finding that the class certification requirements of predominance and superiority were not met with respect to the economic- dependence test and the outside sales exception. The plaintiffs moved to certify a more limited class, defined as: "All persons hired by Bankers who worked as Agents (or in similar job classifications) during the three years prior to filing of the complaint and thereafter whom Bankers classified as independent contractors, whose first year with the Company (or any portion thereof) occurred (a) during the class period and (b) while working in [the] Seattle Region under Regional Manager Al Hawks." Judge Lasnik concluded that for the newly-defined class, common issues did not predominate and that a class action was not a superior method for adjudicating the controversy. A full-text copy of Judge Lasnik's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/5s4xva from Leagle.com. Christine David, Rodney Clure, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & Martin S Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Joanna Marie Silverstein -- jsilverstein@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Ryan Paul Hammond -- rhammond@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON & Daniel L Thieme -- dthieme@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON. BLS LIMOUSINE: Faces "Singley" Class Suit in Calif. Court --------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Singley, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLS Limousine Service of Los Angeles, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC619822 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate wage statements. BLS Limousine Service of Los Angeles, Inc. operates a transportation company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard L. Magee, Esq. Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, PC 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 BLUE BUFFALO: Paid $32MM Settlement into Escrow ----------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has paid a $32.0 million class action settlement into an escrow account pending final court approval of the deal. The Company is defending a lawsuit by Nestle Purina Petcare Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that Blue Fuffalo engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Nestle Purina asserts that, contrary to Blue Buffalo's advertising and labeling claims, certain of its products contain chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the grain- free lines contain grains. Nestle Purina also sued Blue's wholly- owned subsidiary Great Plains Leasing LLC. The Company has filed a counter suit against Nestle Purina. According to Blue, "A number of related putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed in various states in the U.S. making allegations similar to Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We also brought damages and indemnity claims against our former ingredient supplier and broker with respect to the class action lawsuits. "In December 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve all of the U.S. class action lawsuits (the "Settlement"). Under the terms of the Settlement, which have received preliminary court approval and are still subject to final court approval, we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement fund. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. "On January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an escrow account pending final court approval. The amount that each class member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions including whether the claimant has a proof of purchase. The Settlement value does not take into account any potential recovery from insurance or from our former ingredient supplier or broker, against whom we will continue to pursue our claims for indemnity and other damages." The cases have been consolidated under IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD., MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, No. MDL 2562, before the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, pursuant to an October 17, 2014, Order by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a copy of which is available at https://is.gd/fMPEDG from Leagle.com. Blue Fuffalo is a pet food company in the United States, selling dog and cat food made with whole meats, fruits and vegetables, and other high-quality, natural ingredients. BLUE BUFFALO: Faces Ontario Suit Over Pet Food Ads -------------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in February 2016, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. consumer class actions. "We believe the claims are without merit and plan to vigorously defend ourselves," the Company said. Blue Fuffalo is a pet food company in the United States, selling dog and cat food made with whole meats, fruits and vegetables, and other high-quality, natural ingredients. BLUE CROSS: "McGill" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala. -------------------------------------------------------- Rochelle and Brian McGill and Sadler Electric, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00742-RDP (D. Neb., April 7, 2016) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on May 10, 2016, and assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00147. Defendants are into health care insurance and are accused of dividing the market amongst its member affiliates, thus artificially inflating premium costs. Plaintiffs represented by: Jason G. Ausman, Esq. AUSMAN LAW FIRM 1015 North 98th Street, Suite 102 Omaha, NE 68114 Tel: (402) 933-8140 Fax: (402) 718-9423 Email: jason@ausmanlawfirm.com - and - Michael J. Fleming FORBES LAW GROUP 6900 College Blvd., Suite 840 Overland Park, KS 66211 Tel: (913) 341-8600 Fax: (913) 341-8606 Email: mfleming@forbeslawgroup.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP 24110 Eden Street Plaquermine, LA 70765 Tel: (225) 687-6396 Fax: (225) 687-6398 Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Langford" Seeks to Recover Minimum Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Lorri Langford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Buffalo Wild Wings International, Inc., Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Blazin Wings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00209-M-LDA (D. R.I., May 10, 2016) seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses, and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act. Defendants own and operate Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants located in 400 Bald Hill, Suite E107, Warwick, Rhode Island where Plaintiff was hired as a server, compensated at a sub-minimum wage rate and tip-credit wage. The Plaintiff is represented by: V. Edward Formisano, Esq. FORMISANO & COMPANY, P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite 1 Cranston, RI 02920-5707 Tel: (401) 944-9691 Fax: (401) 944-9695 Email: edf@formisanoandcompany.com CANADA: Settles Residential School Class Action for $50MM --------------------------------------------------------- Ariana Kelland and Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, report that a $50-million settlement has been reached for hundreds of residential school survivors in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been involved in a lengthy class action with the federal government. Former students also will receive an undetermined amount of money for reconciliation and healing. They learned of the settlement in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court on May 10. Lawyers expect 750 to 900 people will be compensated. Plantiff Toby Obed, who went to school in North West River, kept repeating the words "this is over" outside the courthouse on May 10. "This is real. This is really happening. It's over. I don't have to go to court no more. I don't have to testify no more," Mr. Obed said, choking back tears. Mr. Obed said it's now time to "let this rest." "I can let my inner child go. I can let my inner child rest." Although lawyers can't bind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to apologize for the abuses students endured while in the schools, many expect he will. About a third of the settlement amount is expected to be paid to lawyers for the plaintiffs from three law firms. "Over the next few months, class counsel will be visiting Labrador communities to provide information about the compensation distribution plan and answer questions," said lawyer Ches Crosbie, in a news release on May 10. The case that was launched almost a decade ago went to trial last fall. Twenty-nine survivors testified. The settlement is for students who were residents at the schools between 1949 and 1979. Four of the schools were located in Labrador and St. Anthony. Class-action lawyers say federal lawyers fought every step of the way until the Liberals were elected last fall. Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued the federal government failed to live up to its responsibilities to Indigenous people in the province after Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada in 1949. The federal government argued that Canada did not set up or operate the schools, so couldn't be held responsible for what happened to students. Former students passed away Cindy Dwyer testified she was physically and sexually abused as a student in Labrador. Ms. Dwyer, an Inuk from Nain who went to a school in North West River, said appearing in court triggered her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). "I want to recover from all of this. I want to start my life all over and I hope and pray that everyone in this class action group can do the same," Ms. Dwyer said on May 9, prior to news a settlement had been reached. Ms. Dwyer also wants an apology from Mr. Trudeau. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say dozens of former students have died since 2007. "I keep thinking of all the people that can't be here, all the ones that passed away . . . to hear this news," Mr. Obed said. Justice Robert Stack will rule in late September if the court accepts the out-of-court settlement. COACH: Settles Unpaid Overtime Class Action for $1.75MM ------------------------------------------------------- The Fashion Law reports that Coach has agreed to settle a multi- million dollar class action lawsuit, in which it was accused of deliberately failing to compensate store employees for the time they spent getting their bags checked after the completion of their shifts. In the lawsuit, which was filed over a year ago in California federal court, former Coach employee Eve Miranda alleged that the American fashion brand failed to provide her and more than 7,300 non-exempt Coach employees in California with legally-required meal and rest breaks, overtime compensation, and itemized wage statements. Coach, which has finally begun to regain some of its coolness factor under the direction of creative head Stuart Vevers after years of significant financial decline, agreed to terms to settle the lawsuit out of court and before trial. The luxury retailer and the plaintiffs resolved the suit in a "compromise that both sides agreed was fair and reasonable," but that certainly falls short of the lawsuit's original demand for $7.25 million in damages. The fashion house, instead, agreed to pay out $1.75 million to Miranda and her fellow class members. The other terms of the lawsuit are confidential. Proposed class action suits alleging companies' failures to provide store employees with meal and rest breaks, and overtime compensation are running rampant through the fashion industry -- with defendants ranging from high fashion houses to purely mass market retailers. Over the past few years alone, Chanel, Gucci, Michael Kors, Cole Haan, J. Crew, H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, and Urban Outfitters, among others have been named in similar suits, with the plaintiffs seeking millions. DAIKIN NORTH: Dermatology Specialists File Suit Over Aircon Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dermatology Specialists of Augusta, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Daikin Applied Americas Inc., and Daikin North America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00058-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., May 10, 2016), seeks general, special, exemplary and/or punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs of suit incurred, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief resulting from breach of express/implied warranty of merchantability, negligence and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Daikin air conditioning units contain evaporator coils made of copper tubing that allegedly corrode and leak refrigerant well before the expiration of their useful life. Plaintiff purchased and installed 19 units at its medical offices located in Evans, Georgia. Daikin Industries, Ltd. is a Japanese multinational corporation based in Osaka, Japan that designs, manufactures, sells, and distributes heating, ventilation, and air conditioner products worldwide. Daikin Applied Americas Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its corporate headquarters at 13600 Industrial Park, Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441. Daikin North America, LLC is a Texas corporation with its corporate headquarters at 10787 Clay Road, Houston, Texas 77041. The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Kirkland Pope, Esq. Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. POPE McGLAMRY KILPATRICK MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 300 P.O. Box 191625 (31119-1625) Atlanta, GA 30326 Tel: (404) 523-7706 Fax: (404) 524-1648 Email: efile@pmkm.com - and - Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq. KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP 1900 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 850 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 851-9000 Fax: (949) 833-9455 Email: KKasdan@kasdancdlaw.com - and - Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq. Frank A. Perez, Esq. KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP 500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 254-4800 Fax: (213) 254-4801 Email: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com DAIRYAMERICA INC: Exhibit in "Carlin" Discovery Dispute Sealed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI- EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean granted Plaintiffs' Request to Seal Document. The Court said Exhibit 1 attached to Attachment A of the Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 300-1) shall be sealed. The Court has forwarded the document to be sealed to the Clerk's Office. A copy of the Court's May 13, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/OzV3YJ from Leagle.com. Gerald Carlin, et al. represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler -- cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg -- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice. DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English - - chipenglish@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren -- ejsteren@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael Marchini -- jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M. Yoviene -- wyoviene@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq. Shannon Marie Nessier, Esq. Megan Oliver Thompson, Esq. Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-777-3200 DAVIS & DEVORE GROUP: "Barros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Espino Barros, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Davis & Devore Group, LLC, Jared Lozupone and Scott Da Vis, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02356 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a food preparation helper and dishwasher. He claims to have been denied overtime pay and did not receive paystubs. Davis & Devore Group, LLC, owned by Jared Lozupone and Scott Davis, operate Teddy's Bar and Grill with a principal place of business at 96 Berry Street, Brooklyn, New York 11249. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone (212) 209-3933 Facsimile (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcplaw.com DESIGNER FRAGRANCES: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company d/b/a Kiehl's Since 1851, Case No. 1:16-cv-21638-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company operates a cosmetics & beauty shop in Miami Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: "Krawczyk" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Krawczyk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Directory Distributing Associates, Inc., and AT&T Corp. Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02531-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2016) seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated damages and penalties, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants hired Plaintiff to deliver AT&T telephone directories, and misclassified him as an independent contractor thus denying him overtime pay. Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. is a Missouri corporation with principal office located at 1324 Clarkson Center 0310, Suite 348, Ellisville, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Alexandra P. Summer, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: 650.697.6000 Fax: 650.697.0577 Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com asummer@cpmlegal.com - and - Richard Mithoff, Esq. Janie Jordan, Esq. MITHOFF LAW One Allen Center - Penthouse 500 Dallas Street Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 713.654.1122 Fax: 713.739.8085 Email: rmithoff@mithofflaw.com jjordan@mithofflaw.com - and - Judith Sadler, Esq. Cynthia Diggs, Esq. Rachel A. Smith, Esq. HOLMES, DIGGS, EAMES & SADLER 5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77007 Tel: 713.802.1777 Fax: 713.802.1779 Email: jsadler@holmesdiggs.com cdiggs@holmesdiggs.com rsmith@holmesdiggs.com - and - Russell Post, Esq. BECK REDDEN 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010-2010 Tel: 713.951.3700 Fax: 713.951.3720 Email: rpost@beckredden.com DIRECTV INC: Class Action Over Early Termination Fees May Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Watchdog on May 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV in 2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court by California consumers who were forced to pay unlawful early termination fees of up to $480 may proceed, the California Court of Appeal has decided. The Court ordered the case back to Superior Court to determine whether DIRECTV waived its right to enforce its fine-print arbitration agreement barring class action lawsuits. It's the same arbitration agreement that the United States Supreme Court upheld last December as enforceable in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. If DIRECTV in fact waived its right to enforce the agreement, as consumer advocates say, DIRECTV customers will be able to go forward with their claims on a class action basis. "DIRECTV took advantage of the civil justice system when it suited the company, but then wants to kick consumers out of the courts. It can't have it both ways," said Harvey Rosenfield. "This is an issue that the US Supreme Court did not decide, but it's a crucial point. And we are proud to say that our battle to protect California consumers will continue." The decision comes as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an independent agency of the United States government, on May 9 ruled that banks can no longer use forced arbitration clauses to ban consumers from joining together in class action lawsuits. The CFPB recognized, after a long period of careful study, that forced arbitration by financial companies such as banks have had a profoundly negative impact on customers' rights, in that they effectively extinguished consumers' ability to seek meaningful relief and isolated wrongdoers from liability by blocking class claims, leaving consumers with no forum to seek justice. This new rule restores bank customers' access to justice, the same access to justice that DIRECTV's customers are seeking. Controversial Arbitration Agreement At Center of Controversy Over Unlawful Fees The eight-year battle to win justice for California consumers who DIRECTV overcharged -- sometimes by withdrawing the unlawful fees directly out of consumers' checking accounts with no notice -- was on its way to a trial in 2010. At the time, DIRECTV's arbitration clause stated that it was "unenforceable" if "the law of your state" forbids customers from joining together in a class action even in arbitration. In California state court, DIRECTV acknowledged that under California state consumer protection laws, its arbitration clause was not enforceable, and the state Superior Court certified the case as a class action in May, 2011. But DIRECTV reversed its position after the United States Supreme Court's Concepcion decision in April 2011 required courts to enforce the highly-controversial arbitration agreements, even those clearly unfair to consumers and employees. DIRECTV asked the courts to stop the pending trial and enforce its arbitration clause to prevent the case from going forward as a class action. DIRECTV sought to force every consumer to arbitrate against it on an individual basis -- or to drop their claims, and let DIRECTV keep the unlawful profits. The California Court of Appeal declined to allow DIRECTV to do so. The company appealed to the US Supreme Court. On December 14, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed a victory to DIRECTV, reversing the California Court of Appeal's decision on a 6 to 3 vote. As Justice Ginsburg explains in her dissent, "It has become routine, in a large part due to this Court's decisions, for powerful economic enterprises to write into their form contracts with consumers and employees no- class-action arbitration clauses. . . . Acknowledging the precedent so far set by the Court, I would take no further step to disarm consumers, leaving them without effective access to justice." To this day, DIRECTV continues to employ the illegal practices. Its arbitration clause no longer contains an exception based on state law. Arbitration clauses are becoming increasingly controversial. On May 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ruled that banks can no longer use forced arbitration clauses to ban consumers from joining together in class action lawsuits. This new rule restores bank customers' access to justice, the same access to justice that DIRECTV's customers are seeking. Consumer Fight Began in 2008 DIRECTV, now part of AT&T, is the largest satellite TV provider in the U.S. with over 16 million customers. The Imburgia case comprises two consolidated class action cases filed in state courts in California in 2008. According to the class action complaint: DIRECTV imposes a mandatory service term of eighteen to twenty four months; few customers are aware of this condition prior to signing up. The company routinely extends this "contractual obligation," often without notice, by another year or two if malfunctioning equipment needs to be replaced, or the customer decides to make a change to programming or other services. Customers who terminate service are charged an "early cancellation fee" of up to $480, regardless of the reason, plus a "deactivation fee." Customers are forced to pay these penalties even if their equipment could not be installed, they moved and DIRECTV service isn't available in the new location, or the equipment simply stopped working. DIRECTV often charges these cancellation fees directly to their customers' credit cards, or even takes the funds out of their checking accounts, without the knowledge or approval of the customer. Many customers who were victimized by this practice incurred substantial additional bank fees as a result. Many others could not afford the fee and were locked into poor or no service for years as a result. Similar suits were filed in federal courts throughout the country. But the federal cases were dismissed in December 2013 after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered that plaintiffs in those cases had to comply with DIRECTV's arbitration clause. About the Legal Team Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.consumerwatchdog.org-- is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization established in California in 1985. The organization fights to protect consumer rights in the courts, in the legislature, and through public education. It has offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Evans Law Firm, Inc. -- http://www.evanslaw.com-- is a San Francisco-based plaintiff's firm that has a special interest and focus in litigating class action and consumer fraud lawsuits, as well as elder abuse (financial and physical), and Qui Tam/false claims actions. Founding Attorney Ingrid M. Evans has successfully represented thousands of fraud victims in class actions against large corporations and has been named as a finalist for CA Consumer Attorney of the Year in 2009, 2012, and 2015. Ms. Evans commented, "This decision represents another denial of justice by the recent pro-business US Supreme Court. It will hurt consumers and will allow corporations to continue overcharging and imposing illegal and undisclosed penalties and charges upon its customers, while evading liability and accountability." FEM Law Group -- http://www.femlawgroup.com-- (formerly the Law Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein), based in Southern California, is a boutique firm focusing on consumer fraud, financial elder abuse, civil litigation, and appellate law. Ms. Mermelstein has built a reputation as a tenacious advocate representing the vulnerable and under-served in an effort to level the playing field in pursuit of justice. The firm is led by F. Edie Mermelstein, who said, "Class actions have gotten a lot of bad press. Most people do not understand that the class action vehicle is a way to level the playing field for the little guy when big businesses such as DIRECTV hatch schemes to make hundreds of millions of dollars a few bucks at a time with little or no fear of being stopped. That's what happened in this case -- the legalization of theft." Paul Stevens -- http://www.stevenslc.com-- of Stevens, LC, argued the case at the California trial court and California Court of Appeal. He has served as lead counsel on behalf of consumers in more than 50 certified class action cases. DITECH FINANCIAL: "Kinnamon" Sues Over Illegal Cellphone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Kinnamon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00646-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 10, 2016), seeks injunction, actual, statutory and treble damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, and other relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ditech Financial, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and is a national provider of home loan origination and loan servicing with offices throughout the country. Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of calling her mobile phone using an automatic telephone dialling system without her prior consent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312.726.1092 Fax: 312.726.1093 Email: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com keith@keoghlaw.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Tel: 203.653.2250 Ext. 5500 Fax: 203.653.3425 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com - and - John Hein, Esq. SAUERWEIN HEIN, P.C. 147 North Meramec Ave. St. Louis, MO 63105 Tel: 314.863.9100 Fax: 314.863.9101 Email: jjh@sauerwein.com DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Seeking Indemnity from A Sure Wing ---------------------------------------------------------- Diversified Restaurant Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, that the Company has filed an indemnity claim against A Sure Wing, LLC and has received a reciprocal indemnity claim from A Sure Wing, LLC, related to a collective lawsuit by tipped workers. On December 18, 2015, a collective action was filed against AMC Wings, Inc., and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by plaintiffs, David, et al. A Sure Wing, LLC, the seller of the 18 St. Louis BWW restaurants acquired by the Company on June 29, 2015, was also named as a defendant. Plaintiffs primarily allege that former and current tipped workers at the above-mentioned companies were assigned to perform tasks outside the scope of their tipped positions, in violation of Illinois and federal law. The defendant companies filed their answers to the complaint on February 22, 2016, and the next status hearing was scheduled for March 18, 2016. At this stage in the process, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of their damages claim. The Company has filed an indemnity claim against A Sure Wing, LLC and has received a reciprocal indemnity claim from A Sure Wing, LLC. A Sure Wing, LLC and the Company have agreed to toll their respective indemnity claims pending resolution of the matter. This case is in the early stages and the plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss. DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in North. Dist. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, L.L.C. The case is captioned Jason Wood and Roger Barrows, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., Case No. 3:16-cv-00534-GLS-DEP (N.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). The Defendants operate a chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in a class action lawsuit filed in 2011 by an assistant store manager. In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods and alleging PAGA claims on behalf of all store employees, including claims for failure to provide accurate wage statements. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Wage Suit in Calif. by Assist. Store Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company was served in November 2015 in a PAGA representative action under California law in California state court on behalf of former assistant store managers alleging defective wage statements. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Hourly Non-Exempt Employees Sue in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company was served in February 2016 in a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Florida federal court. The pleadings allege overtime violations on behalf of all hourly non-exempt employees. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that there are 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in a Multi-District Litigation involving Family Dollar. In 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in North Carolina federal court to handle cases alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations against the Company. In the first two cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that time, the court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime. Presently, there are 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the North Carolina Federal Court has not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The plaintiffs have signed an agreement with the Company to settle all remaining cases. The settlement must be approved by the court and the proposed settlement amount has been fully accrued. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a defendant in an employee suit over discriminatory pay. In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the Company's female store managers. This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The case was transferred to North Carolina Federal Court in November 2008. The parties are proceeding with limited discovery and the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes the case is fully insured. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Massachusetts Suit Over Unpaid OT Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a defendant in an employee class action over unpaid overtime. In 2013, plaintiffs filed a claim in Massachusetts state court seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts law. The Company then removed the case to Federal District court in Massachusetts. In 2014, the case was remanded to state court. The plaintiffs have signed an agreement with the Company to settle the class action. The settlement must be approved by the court and the proposed settlement amount has been fully accrued. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Customer Class Suit Over Text Spam Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a defendant in a customer class action over text message advertisements. In 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action in Missouri Federal Court alleging the Company sent customers Short Message Service ("SMS") text message advertisements, without providing appropriate express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff has signed an agreement with the Company to settle the class action. The settlement must be approved by the court and the proposed settlement amount has been fully accrued. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Bag Checking Suit Pending in Calif. Court ------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a defendant in an employee suit over the checking of bags. In 2014, a putative class action was filed in a California Federal Court by a former employee alleging that the Company had a policy of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were not clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the employee alleges the Company violated California law by failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime wages for work performed off the clock, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay all final wages and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleged PAGA claims. While employed by the Company, the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate matters related to his employment. Accordingly, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and is awaiting the court's ruling on that motion. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Employee Class Suit Over Seating Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a defendant in a 2014 employee class action over seating. In 2014, a former employee brought a putative class action and asserted claims under PAGA alleging the Company failed to provide suitable seating to its California store employees. The case has been stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on whether a drug store retailer has an obligation to provide suitable seating to drug store cashiers. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. DOLLAR TREE: Background Checks Class Suit in Virginia Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar is defending a 2014 employee class action filed in Virginia. In 2014, a former employee filed a nationwide class action in federal court in Virginia alleging the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to comply with its requirements to give an individual proper notice and a reasonable time to challenge the results of a background check before taking action to deny the person employment (or terminate existing employment). The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation. Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores. The stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals. On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more than 8,200 stores. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm, alerts Express Scripts Holding Company investors to the newly filed class action lawsuit and the July 5, 2016 lead plaintiff deadline. If you suffered significant losses because of your purchases of Express Scripts between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 or have information that will help our investigation contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation by calling 510-725-3000, emailing ESRX@hbsslaw.com or visiting https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ESRX The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and investors have until July 5, 2016 to move the court to participate as a lead plaintiff. The litigation asserts Express Scripts' relationship with its most important client -- Anthem, Inc., -- was rapidly deteriorating, in contrast with Defendants' public statements otherwise. Unknown to investors, on February 16, 2015 and on April 1, 2015 Anthem served Express Scripts with a notice of default arising from material operational breaches, yet publicly Express Scripts represented "we've got a great relationship with Anthem . . . . The relationship is very, very solid." On January 12, 2016, Anthem publicly threatened to end its relationship with Express Scripts unless it would renegotiate its agreement with Anthem to deliver more than $3 billion in annual savings. As a result, the price of Express Scripts shares fell 7% to close at $79.69 on January 13, 2016. On March 21, 2016, Anthem sued Express Scripts, claiming that Express Scripts breached its contractual duties to negotiate price terms in good faith and perform operational duties in a "prudent and expert manner". As a result, the price of Express Scripts shares fell 2.6% to close at $67.52 on March 22, 2016. "Public companies are required to disclose material known risks to their business rather than generally disclaiming them," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. "The notices of default appear contrary to the representations of a very strong relationship." Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Express Scripts should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email ESRX@hbsslaw.com About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Opposes Policy Holders' Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") is opposing a motion for class certification of a lawsuit by policy holders. Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company ("TLIC"), FBLIC developed, marketed, and sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies the same as that provided during the first year of coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in premium. The main difference between the original Petition and the amended Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95 years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law, specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums collected under these policies. FBLIC has moved to dismiss Count VIII of the amended Petition. No hearing has been held or ruling made on this Motion. FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will continue to defend against them. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared void. FBLIC intends to oppose the request for class certification, as well as to defend vigorously against the individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive action. First Trinity Financial Corporation (the "Company" or "FTFC") is the parent holding company of Trinity Life Insurance Company ("TLIC"), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") and First Trinity Capital Corporation ("FTCC"). The Company was incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary. FIFTH STREET: Oklahoma Police, Labaton Firm Lead Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP have been named as as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively, in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit. The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative securities class-action lawsuits arising from our role as investment adviser to FSC. The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088- LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, and Richard Petrocelli, FSC, and the Company. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and investment advisor of FSC. For example, the lawsuits allege that FSC improperly delayed the write-down of five of its investments until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31, 2014, after FSAM conducted its IPO in October 2014, when FSC purportedly should have taken the write- down before FSAM's IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the actions. On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. The parties proposed that lead plaintiff file its consolidated complaint by April 1, 2016. FIFTH STREET: Dismissal of "Craig" Action in Delaware Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of FSC on January 29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A. No. 11947-VCG. The defendants in the case are Bernard D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens, Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSAM, FSC, and Fifth Street Holdings L.P. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to FSC stockholders by, among other things, issuing an incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that purportedly attempted to mislead FSC stockholders into voting against proposals presented by another shareholder (RiverNorth Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection with FSC's 2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder proposals sought to elect three director nominees to FSC's Board and to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement between FSC and FSAM. The complaint also charges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by seeking to entrench themselves as directors and FSAM affiliates as FSC's manager. The FSAM entities are charged with breaching their duties as alleged controlling persons of FSC and with aiding and abetting the FSC directors' breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing FSC and its board of directors from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures are issued; a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by acting to have the FSC board of directors and Fifth Street Management LLC remain in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by FSC after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting will not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of the FSC stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. The plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction. Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings and moved to dismiss the case. FSC also filed another amendment to the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth. On February 16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that the basis for his injunction motion had become moot and that he was withdrawing his motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited proceedings. On February 18, 2016, FSC announced that it had entered into an agreement with RiverNorth pursuant to which RiverNorth would withdraw its competing proxy solicitation. The Company believes that, with respect to itself and its related entities, all of the claims in the lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against such claims. FIFTH STREET: Defending Securities Class Suits in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been named as a defendant in two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's shares. The suits are related to the securities class actions brought by shareholders of FSC, for which Fifth Street Management serves as investment advisor. The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on January 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased common stock in or pursuant to the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claims for relief. On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case can be coordinated with the securities class actions filed by FSC shareholders. On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's shareholders was filed, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned Joyce L. Trupp Agreement of Trust v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-01711. The defendants are the same as in the Linde case, and the complaint is a virtual clone of the Linde complaint. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations. FLORIDA: Citrus Canker Class Action Goes to Trial ------------------------------------------------- Jay Weaver, writing for Miami Herald, reports that at the height of the citrus canker wars 16 years ago, state agriculture inspectors deployed crews with chainsaws to mow down hundreds of thousands of orange, grapefruit and key lime trees -- even if they showed no signs of infection. Ever since, outraged Florida property owners have been struggling to be compensated by the state for their losses. On May 9, a Miami-Dade County couple finally had their day in court. For decades, Brian Patchen and his wife, Bunny, enjoyed the bounty of fruits picked from the half-dozen robust citrus trees growing on their Miami Beach property. Then, without warning, the state chopped them all down to stumps in the fall of 2000. "On Halloween, our trees got tricked instead of treated," Mr. Patchen, a longtime Miami attorney, testified on May 9. Mr. Patchen is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit representing an estimated 100,000 property owners in Miami-Dade who believe they were wronged by the state. Depending on the outcome of the class trial, they could be eligible for more than $120 million in damages from the state of Florida for having cut down about 250,000 of their citrus trees at the height of the canker wars between 2000 and 2006. In that period, the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services removed any residential citrus tree that came within 1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree -- even if they didn't have any telltale lesions on their leaves or fruit. Agriculture officials expanded that distance, which was initially limited to 125 feet, as they battled the wind-whipped spread of a bacterial disease the said threatened Florida's prized citrus industry. Florida officials maintain that the private property takings served a greater public interest, and that those who lost their citrus trees were already compensated under statewide settlements. All these years later, many Florida property owners are still simmering over the loss of their beloved citrus trees. Miami-Dade residents are only the latest to take their class-action case to court. Others who lost hundreds of thousands of citrus trees to the state's eradication program have already won multimillion- dollar jury awards for their losses in Broward, Palm Beach, Orange and Lee counties. Agriculture officials already provided some compensation to property owners whose citrus trees were chopped down because of canker fears -- with the state issuing $55 checks as well as Walmart gift cards for each lost tree. But the various county lawsuits have sought damages far beyond those amounts, with state officials and their lawyers fighting them every step of the way. On May 9, plaintiffs attorneys Robert Gilbert and Joseph Serota began their long-awaited trial against the state in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Judge Thomas Rebull will determine whether the state should be held liable for damages, then, if necessary, a jury would be convened to decide damages. Mr. Patchen's testimony set the stage for trial, as he detailed his rude awakening to the state's policy. He testified that he and his wife, a former flight attendant, were never notified by the state about its stepped-up eradication policy or its decision to target the half-dozen citrus trees in the couple's yard on North Bay Road. Mr. Patchen said that he and his wife felt blindsided by the state's destruction. "The trees were green," he testified. "The fruit was unmarked." Mr. Patchen, who happens to specialize in property takings as a lawyer, said the couple only learned about the reason for the state's action to cut down their trees after they were reduced to stumps. He found out that there was a citrus canker infestation on Sunset Islands, less than 1,900 feet from this Miami Beach home. Asked how much he should be compensated for each of his half-dozen lost citrus trees: "several thousands dollars," Mr. Patchen said, noting their maturity. He also said he and his wife never received a $55 check or Walmart gift card as a settlement from the state. An expert witness who had worked as a senior state agriculture official for 40 years defended the eradication program, saying the absence of canker lesions on leaves and fruit didn't mean a tree was not diseased. "It's difficult to detect citrus canker in the early stages," said Richard Gaskalla, former director of the state Division of Plant Industry, which oversaw the program. Mr. Gaskalla said that as he directed the eradication program, he was looking out for not only the interests of the citrus industry but those of property owners. "I gave them equal weight in my mind," he testified. But pressed further on cross examination, Mr. Gaskalla admitted that the orange was featured on the Florida license plate. "It's the iconic crop," he said. "It's an important part of our life- support system." Mr. Gaskalla acknowledged that while the state is responsible for the taking of private property to serve a public interest, he said the ultimate legal question boils down whether they received "full compensation" for their losses. If the judge rules for Mr. Patchen and the other Miami-Dade property owners, a jury would answer that question. FORGIATO INC: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Juan Quiroz, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forgiato, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC619818 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Based in Los Angeles, California, Forgiato, Inc., designs and builds luxury wheels for performance cars. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justian Jusuf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (714) 274-9815 Facsimile: (714) 362-3148 FUSHA 311: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Martin Garcia and Obdulio Garcia, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Fusha 311 West Inc. d/b/a Fusha Japanese Restaurant, Sushi Time East Inc. d/b/a Sushi Time, Amber 80 Inc., Amber 3rd Ave. Inc., Amber 221 West Inc. all d/b/a Amber, Pui Yan Ho, Lin Xi, and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Fusha 311 West Inc. d/b/a Fusha Japanese Restaurant, Sushi Time East Inc. d/b/a Sushi Time, Amber 80 Inc., Amber 3rd Ave. Inc., and Amber 221 West Inc. all d/b/a as Amber, Pui Yan Ho and Lin Xi, Case No. 1:16-cv-03434 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Fusha, Sushi Time and Amber restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonor H. Coyle, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com GENENTECH INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Comanche County Memorial Hospital, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genentech Inc., Roche Holding AG, Roche Holding Ltd., and Roche Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 02498 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a biotechnology company headquartered in San Francisco, California. Comanche County Memorial Hospital is a pro se plaintiff. GIBCO MOTOR EXPRESS: "Stell" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David R. Herndon granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned JOHN STELL and CHARLES WILLIAMS, JR., on behalf of themselves individually and as class representatives on behalf of similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. GIBCO MOTOR EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:15-cv-1105-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill.). Judge Herndon remanded the action to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of Judge Herndon's May 9, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/HZpoJo from Leagle.com. On August 28, 2015, John Stell and Charles Williams, Jr., on behalf of themselves individually and as class representatives on behalf of similarly situated employees, filed a putative class action against Gibco Motor Express, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged Gibco failed to pay its employees overtime wages at time and a half for all hours worked over 40 hours a week in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and in breach of Gibco's Employee Handbook. The plaintiffs estimate the class includes approximately 150 employees with aggregate damages amounting to approximately $400,000. Stell and Williams are citizens of the State of Illinois. Gibco is a citizen of the state of Indiana. On October 6, 2015, Gibco removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. sections 1332(a) and 1441. The plaintiffs moved to remand to state court. John Stell, Charles Williams, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin J. Dolley -- kevin@dolleylaw.com -- Law Offices of Kevin J. Dolley LLC. Gibco Motor Express, LLC, Defendant, represented by Yvette M. Boutaugh -- yboutaugh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw Culbertson LLP & Terese A. Drew -- tdrew@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw Culbertson LLP. GREENER GROUP: Faces "Sanchez" Class Suit in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Jeremy L. McSorley and Greener Group, LLC. The case is captioned Roberto Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jeremy L. McSorley and Greener Group, LLC, Case No. 1681CV01324 (Mass. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016). The Defendants own and operate a landscaping business located at 123 Bolt St Lowell, MA 01852. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Davis, Esq. DAVIS & DAVIS PC North Reading, MA Telephone: (978) 276-9051 E-mail: pdavis@davisanddavispc.com GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re GROUPON, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 12 C 2450 Hon. Charles R. Norgle This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF GROUPON'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.0001 PER SHARE (THE "COMMON STOCK"), IN OR TRACEABLE TO GROUPON'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING BETWEEN NOVEMBER 4, 2011 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED THEREBY. - AND - ALL SUCH PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2012 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE SUBCLASS PERIOD") AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED THEREBY. Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and Former Underwriter Defendants and their immediate families; (2) any entity in which Defendants or Former Underwriter Defendants have or had a majority interest; (3) past and present Officers and Directors of Groupon, Inc.; and (4) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any excluded party. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") of a proposed $45 million Settlement in the above-captioned action (the "Action"). Plaintiffs estimate there were approximately 40.25 million shares of the Common Stock traded during the Class Period that may have been damaged. If all such shares were in fact damaged and elect to participate in the Settlement, the average recovery per share could be $1.118 before deduction of any fees, expenses, costs, and awards described herein. The actual amount disbursed to members of the Class who participate in the Settlement may be more or less than this figure. A hearing will be held on July 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before Honorable Charles R. Norgle in Courtroom 2341 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for $45,000,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (5) whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (6) whether the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted. If you purchased the Common Stock in or traceable to Groupon's IPO during the Class Period and were or may have been damaged thereby OR you purchased or acquired the Common Stock during the Subclass Period and were or may have been damaged thereby, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O Box 40007 College Station TX 77842-4007, by calling (877) 369- 3968, or by visiting www.grouponsecuritieslitigation.com If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided above and postmarked no later than August 26, 2016. If you are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the address above and postmarked no later than June 29, 2016, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. If you have any objection to the proposed Settlement, the adequacy of the representation provided by Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the Stipulation, the application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $1.15 million, and/or the application of a Compensatory Award, not to exceed $5,000 each, for the time and expenses incurred by Class Plaintiffs, or if you otherwise wish to be heard with respect to any of the foregoing, you may appear in person or by attorney at the Final Approval Hearing. Notice of objection or appearance must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received by each party no later than June 29, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom, in the manner provided herein, will be represented by Class Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they so desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own choice and at their own expense. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. Any questions should be directed to: Claims Administrator: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O Box 40007 College Station TX 77842-4007 Telephone: (877) 369-3968 Class Counsel: Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 jbsilverman@pomlaw.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS By Order of the Court United States District Court Northern District of Illinois With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. HANNIBAL, IL: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Quality Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Alyse Thompson, writing for Herald-Whig, reports that Beth Percy said she and other Hannibal residents should have a voice in how their drinking water is disinfected. Ms. Percy, who has lived in Hannibal for 35 years, is among a steadfast circle of Hannibal Board of Public Works customers who oppose the utility's use of chloramines, chlorine-ammonia compounds that kill bacteria and viruses and reduce levels of potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts, or DBP, in water supplies and distribution systems. Citing skin and respiratory irritation, pipe corrosion and a lack of research as concerns with chloramines, citizens have amplified efforts to get the attention of -- and action from -- a utility they say will not listen to its customers and community. "We should have a right to choose what goes in our water," Ms. Percy said. "We should not have somebody choose for us. It should be our decision -- not a group of people who are only concerned about money." BPW leaders say pressure from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to come into compliance with federal DBP standards, as well as chloramines' effectiveness and life-cycle cost, prompted the utility to begin injecting the disinfecting agent last fall. BPW officials also say they did not expect such strong reaction from customers, given the widespread, decades-long use of chloramines by public water systems across the country. Residents' disapproval, the BPW said, should be directed toward regulatory agencies that develop the rules. Start of the storm The BPW's quarterly tests for DBP began showing abnormally high levels of total trihalomethanes, or TTHM, in late 2011. That is a problem, according to rules adopted by the Environemental Protection Agency in the 1990s and the mid-2000s. DBP form when chlorine reacts with organic material in the water. Studies have shown that long-term exposure to DBPs may increase consumers' risk of developing bladder, colon and rectal cancers, as well as liver, kidney or central nervous system problems. A potential link also may exist between pregnant women's exposure to DBP and low birth weight and birth defects. The research led the EPA to develop the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules, which set goals and limits for two regulated types of DBP: TTHM and haloacetic acids, or HAA5. After recording a running annual average for TTHM of 120 micrograms per liter in 2011 -- 50 percent higher than the federal limit of 80 -- the BPW experienced violations just about every quarter between 2011 and late 2015. As a result, the MDNR, the state's enforcer of drinking water regulations, required the BPW to send public notices to its customers about the violations. A December 2014 public notice indicated the BPW had begun looking at different chemicals and treatment technologies to reduce DBP levels, but it did not specifically mention the BPW's intention to use chloramines, an option St. Louis engineering firm Horner and Shifrin presented in 2012. The BPW tapped Horner and Shifrin the year before to conduct a study on ways to reduce DBP and meet an Oct. 1, 2015, compliance deadline set by the MDNR. The BPW on Aug. 28 -- one month before the utility began injecting the disinfection agent -- sent letters to customers, alerting them to the impending switch to chloramines. That was the first time Percy heard of it. She did an online search of chloramines, and did not like what she found. Water systems use chloramines because they cost less than other methods, stay in distribution systems longer and are less likely to lead to TTHM and HAA5 formation. However, chloramines can be toxic to fish and cause anemia in dialysis patients if water is not treated properly before dialysis facilities use it. Chloramines also have their own DBPs that are not regulated and still may increase the risk of developing cancer and skin and respiratory problems. Unmonitored changes in water chemistry also may cause lead from pipes and fittings to leach into water supplies, which poses another set of health problems. Ms. Percy and other citizens formed at least three different groups to voice their concerns with the treatment method to the BPW. They were not exactly welcomed with open arms, Percy said. "From the beginning, all we've wanted is to be listened to, taken seriously and respected, and we have not gotten any of that," she said. BPW officials declined recent interview requests, citing a class- action suit over water quality pending in Marion County Circuit Court. However, Heath Hall, BPW director of operations, said in September the utility did not expect a public outcry. "It's kind of surprising," he said. "In the water treatment field, ammonia or chloramines have been used for decades. We're one of the last surface water systems of our size to switch to chloramines. I was really surprised by the controversy." Research presented in a 1994 EPA report said short-term studies indicate chloramines had no adverse effects on test subjects' physical condition, and test subjects had no major objections to the taste of monochloramine in provided doses. BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson also said in October the utility was "essentially powerless" when it came to using chloramines, noting it faced the threat of fines if it did not come into compliance with DBP regulations by the Oct. 1 deadline. "We are injecting chloramines because we are under a mandate to do so," he said. "The DNR approved the use of that chemical to solve our problem back in 2012, after a lengthy amount of study as to what would be the most effective thing to do." A Nov. 23 letter to Stevenson from Steve Sturgess, MDNR public drinking water branch chief, said the agency did not require use of chloramines, only that the BPW do something to comply with DBP regulations. "Some city officials, through the media, have suggested that the department required the city to use chloramination in its drinking water treatment system," he wrote. "That is not the case. The city chose the treatment technology in order to comply with federal, health-based standards for drinking water." Ms. Percy agreed. "The Board of Public Works has done this, not the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the EPA," she said. "This is a decision that they made on the information they had." Community action In September, two citizens groups, Concerned Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and Consumer Watchdog Group of Hannibal, reached out to Robert Bowcock, a California-based water quality consultant about the situation. He was not thrilled with what he heard. "The use of chloramine in order to comply with [DBP rules] is completely out of sorts with what's really supposed to be done," Mr. Bowcock said in a March phone interview. "They're supposed to look at the organic reduction in their distribution system in their treatment process, and they're completely ignoring that. What they're doing is a quick, cheap fix, rather than addressing the underlying problem." During an October public meeting, Mr. Bowcock suggested the BPW turn to granular activated carbon, a filtration medium that pulls organic material from water and may cut the amount of disinfecting chemicals the utility would have to use. Granular activated carbon, or GAC, was one option Horner and Shifrin presented in its study, but the BPW did not select it based on the required capital investment and maintenance costs. After the public meeting, the BPW said it would revisit GAC at the citizens' request. John Hummel, BPW water and wastewater supervisor, presented a report to the utility's directors in February that said switching from anthracite coal to GAC could cost about $840,000, a tab Horner and Shifrin included in its study. Mr. Hummel said the switch would not be a "financially responsible" decision for the utility, since it had been, at that time, meeting DBP requirements for about four months with chloramines. It could also lead to a rate increase, he noted. Mr. Hummel's report did not go over well. Mr. Bowcock called it "laughable," adding that while not an inexpensive option, GAC is a positive one. The report also drew the attention of consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, who addressed it on her Facebook page in February. "You are liars," Ms. Brockovich wrote of the BPW. "Now your refusal to give alternative (USEPA Best Available Technologies) water treatment technologies FAIR consideration . . . you are causing harm to your friends and families . . . You were in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for 3 years . . . and lied . . . you were under a consent order . . . and lied. Please, just resign and go home." Lawsuit and a ballot measure Not pleased with the BPW's response, residents Vickie Brooks, Oliver "O.C." Latta, Chrystal Stephens and Christine Stolte in March filed a class-action suit seeking damages for purchasing and using water they called "unfit for human use" between September 2011 and February 2016. The suit does not specifically address chloramines, but it refers to elevated levels of TTHM and corresponding violations the BPW experienced during that time period. Chris Nidel, a Washington, D.C., attorney involved in the case, told The Herald-Whig federal regulations exist "for a reason." "People have a fundamental right in this country to clean water, safe water, particularly when they pay for it and particularly when the laws require it," he said. Mr. Bowcock said he was "disappointed" by the suit, noting it would detract from efforts to develop a resolution to the discord. "I'd rather see the money go into honest, open dialogue between the [BPW] and the community about solutions and not this nonsense of litigation where it's not appropriate," he said. Instead, Mr. Bowcock helped two other groups, Hannibal to Oppose Chloramines and Hannibal and Ralls County Citizens for Safe Water, launch proceedings to put a measure on an upcoming election ballot that would prohibit the "administration, dosing, feeding or use" of ammonia in the public drinking water system. Citizens are in the process of collecting signatures from at least 10 percent of Hannibal's registered voters, and Kellie Cookson, founder of Hannibal to Oppose Chloramines, said she is hopeful the process will work. "My hope is that we can effectively get a system that is safe for pregnant women, safe for infants and safe for anyone with compromised health," she said. HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beverley Newbold, Esq., and Rafael Aiolfi, Esq., of Minter Ellison, in an article for Lexology, report that on April 20, 2016, the first judgment in Australia to accept what is known as the "indirect market based theory of causation" was handed down by a single judge of the NSW Supreme Court. The case has important implications for numerous ASX-listed companies, particularly those involved in shareholder class actions, where the issue of how to prove causation has been the subject of significant debate. Market based causation The theory of market-based causation holds that where misleading or improperly withheld information causes the market to inflate the price of securities beyond the true value which would have prevailed but for the contraventions, the act of purchasing shares in such a market is sufficient to make out the causal nexus between the misleading information and investors' losses. This means that investors do not need to prove that they purchased securities with express knowledge of and reliance upon the misleading information. The decision In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (in liquidation) & Ors [2016] NSWSC 482 (HIH) held that plaintiff shareholders who bought shares in a publicly listed company at an inflated price could recover their loss without the need to establish a direct link between the company's misleading and deceptive conduct and their decision to purchase the shares. Impact on shareholder class actions A shareholder class action is usually brought on behalf of investors who purchased shares in a company at an allegedly inflated price in circumstances where the company is said to have breached the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ASX Listing Rules or the ASIC Act2001 (Cth) in its statements to the market. One of the unresolved issues in shareholder class actions is whether investors are required to prove that they relied on the company's alleged misleading statements prior to purchasing the shares. Although the HIH decision is not a shareholder class action, it will certainly encourage plaintiff shareholders to take legal action against downgraded ASX-listed companies, and may have immediate implications for several existing shareholder class actions. Case facts In the HIH case, the plaintiffs were shareholders who bought shares in HIH during the period between October 26, 1999 and March 15, 2001. The plaintiffs argued that certain representations contained in the HIH's financial results released to the market on August 25, 1999 and March 2, 2000 (Financial Results) were misleading and deceptive in contravention of section 52 of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) and sections 995 or 999 of the then Corporations Law. In short, the plaintiffs argued that the HIH wrongly accounted for certain reinsurance contracts creating a misleading and deceptive appearance of its operating profit. The plaintiffs argued that they purchased shares at prices which were inflated by the misrepresentations contained in the Financial Results, and consequently suffered loss and damage by reason of having paid more for the shares they purchased than they would otherwise have paid. Importantly, the plaintiffs did not contend that they had read, or directly relied upon reports of, the Financial Results prior to purchasing shares. When HIH was placed into liquidation, the plaintiffs lodged proofs of debt in respect of their losses, but the Liquidators and scheme administrators, the defendants in the proceedings, did not admit their proofs. The plaintiffs then sought orders from the Supreme Court of NSW that their proofs of debt be admitted. Decision The critical issue in this case was whether indirect causation was available to the plaintiffs. The relevant sections of the TPA and the Corporations Law (now, effectively, section 1041H of the Corporations Act) required a plaintiff to establish that the loss or damage they suffered by the plaintiffs was caused "by" the contravening conduct. As discussed in HIH, previous decisions have established that it is not necessary that the plaintiffs establish that the contravening conduct was the sole cause of any relevant loss; it suffices if the conduct was a cause of the relevant loss, in the sense that it materially contributed to that loss or damage. The plaintiffs put to the Court that: -- the contravening conduct regarding the company's operating profit misled the market into attributing an inflated value to HIH shares -- the plaintiffs acquired their shares in that inflated market, and -- the plaintiffs thus paid more than they would otherwise have paid for the same shares. The defendants relied on longstanding authorities supporting the need for direct reliance, (see Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd v Brand[2004] NSWCA 58 (2004) 62 IPR 184 and Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd [2008] NSWCA 206). They argued a person such as a shareholder who claims to have suffered loss by entering into a transaction (such as purchasing a share) must establish that they had regard to the allegedly misleading information available (direct reliance). In finding in favour of the plaintiffs, Justice Brereton distinguished the facts from previous authorities, concluding that: -- Digi-Tech and Ingot did not involve 'market-based causation'; Digi-Tech involved a decision to invest in a scheme and Ingot involved a decision to participate in a converting note issue. -- Digi-Tech and Ingot concerned situations where the effect of the contravening conduct was to contribute to the opportunity for the investor to enter into a transaction. Arguably, but for the contravening conduct, the investors would not have entered into a transaction. -- Digi-Tech and Ingot concerned scenarios in which the alternatives were 'transaction' or 'no transaction', but HIH was different: the alternatives were not 'transaction' or no 'transaction', but rather a transaction at a lower or higher price, in which the contravening conduct had the necessary consequence that a higher price would exist. Justice Brereton established the chain of causation as follows: -- HIH released overstated Financial Results to the market the market was deceived into a misapprehension that HIH was trading more profitably than it really was and had greater net assets than it really had; -- HIH shares traded on the market at an inflated price, and investors paid that inflated price to acquire their shares, and suffered loss. Justice Brereton then concluded at [77] that: :I do not see how the absence of direct reliance by the plaintiffs on the overstated accounts denies that the publication of those accounts caused them loss, if they purchased shares at a price set by a market which was inflated by the contravening conduct: the contravening conduct caused the market on which the shares traded to be distorted, which in turn caused loss to investors who acquired the shares in that market at the distorted price. In the absence of any suggestion that any of the plaintiffs knew the truth about, or were indifferent to, the contravening conduct, but proceeded to buy the shares nevertheless. I conclude that 'indirect causation' is available and direct reliance need not be established." Loss The contravening conduct caused the HIH shares to be inflated. In assessing the damages, his Honour admitted at that the assessment of damages, particularly where hypothetical scenarios are involved, is a difficult task and it involves a degree of speculation. In calculating the loss suffered by the plaintiffs, Justice Brereton concluded that the appropriate measure is represented by the difference between the price at which HIH shares actually traded on the market, and the hypothetical price achieved had the contravening conduct not occurred. Next Steps Justice Brereton's decision in HIH is subject to appeal. Ultimately, the debate of whether indirect causation is available under Australian law is likely to be resolved by an appellate court. HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Jarzyna's Bid for Reconsideration --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 10-4191 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno denied the plaintiff's Motion to Allow Reply Memorandum, which the judge construed as a motion for reconsideration of its rulings on the parties' motions for summary judgment. In his motion, Mariusz G. Jarzyna asked the court to reinstate his claims against the defendant, Home Properties, L.P. under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Judge Robreno denied Jarzyna's motion because it had previously considered Jarzyna's arguments when deciding the parties' summary judgment motions and motions for reconsideration, Jarzyna's motion was untimely, and Jarzyna's arguments concerning application of his security deposit toward the 30-day notice fee are not supported by the record. A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's May 6, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/V4s4q2 from Leagle.com. MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, represented by FRANCIS J. FARINA, JACOB T. THIELEN, O'KEEFE MILLER & THIELEN PC & JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE, O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C.. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Defendant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY -- cdougherty@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., represented by RONALD S. CANTER, THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC. INTOUCH MOBILE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Intouch Mobile, Inc., Intouch Mobile, LLC, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC619823 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate a T-Mobile Wireless services company headquartered at 100 N. Citrus St. West Covina, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Sachsenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima, Eduardo Sergio Elsztain, Cresud Sociedad Anonima Comercial, Inmobiliaria, Financiera Y Agropecuaria, Saul Zang, and Matias IV A.N Gaivironsky, Case No. 2:16-cv-02213-PD (E.D. Penn., May 9, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima is a real estate company that engages in a range of diversified real estates-related activities in Argentina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Gener Haklay, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA 101 Greenwood Ave Suite 203 Philadelphia, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com ghaklay@rosenlegal.com - and - Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, 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 J.G. WENTWORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------- The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is awaiting a court decision on the motion to dismiss it filed in the case against one of its subsidiaries, J. G. Wentworth Originations, pending in Illinois state court. The Company said, "In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against us and our subsidiaries in the Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The class action complaint, as amended, alleges that we violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by, among other things, marketing, soliciting, and engaging in transfers of structured settlement payment rights despite knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the underlying structured settlement agreements, and also alleges common law fraud, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on the same structured settlement purchase transactions. The plaintiffs seek to have the prior transfers declared void. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and subsequently remanded back to the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois due to a finding that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois lacked subject matter jurisdiction." "Following the remand, upon our appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and remanded the case back to that court. "On April 10, 2015, one of the plaintiffs from the above mentioned proceeding filed a new action in the Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, against one of our subsidiaries, J. G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, alleging similar facts and violations as the previously filed matter, and also requesting that each qualified order obtained be declared void. We responded to the proceeding, noting that we believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit. This case was ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and we await a decision on dismissal." J.G. Wentworth is a diversified financial services company that specializes in providing solutions to consumers in need of cash. J. SALERNO: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- Santiago Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. Salerno & Son, Inc. and Joseph Salerno, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05120 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2016), seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendants operate a restaurant called Salerno's located in downtown Chicago where Plaintiff worked as a chef. He claims to be denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel A. Brodsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOEL A. BRODSKY 8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 541-7000 Email: jbrodsky@joelbrodskylaw.com - and - Chris R. Brockman 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (773) 234-4974 (312) 541-7000 Email: chris@chrisbrockmanlaw.com J.M. HOLM: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ARREDONDO, Plaintiff, v. J.M. HOLM & CO., INC., and TODD NELMS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-01317 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. J.M. Holm & Co., Inc. specializes in industrial cleaning and coatings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Siurek, Esq. 3334 Richmond, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: 713-522-0066 Fax: 713-522-9977 E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com - and - WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P. Patricia Haylon 3334 Richmond, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: 713-522-0066 Fax: 713-522-9977 E-mail: thaylon@warrensiurek.com JAMIE'S WHALING: Responds to Whale-Watching Accident Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metronews.ca reports that the deadly capsizing of a whale-watching vessel off Vancouver Island last year was an "act of God" that could not have been reasonably predicted nor prevented, says the owner of a tour operator. Jamie Bray of Jamie's Whaling Station in Tofino, B.C., filed a court document responding to a proposed class-action lawsuit launched by brothers Christian and Dirk Barchfeld. The German siblings were aboard the Leviathan II on Oct. 25, 2015, when the 20-metre vessel flipped, killing six people. They are accusing the company of negligence for allowing the Leviathan II out in treacherous ocean conditions. The response to a civil claim praised Capt. Wayne Dolby, who is also named in the lawsuit, as well as other employees, for their life-saving actions. "The captain and crew successfully pulled a number of passengers into the life raft and were attempting to rescue other passengers when vessels, which saw the deployed parachute rocket, and then the Canadian Coast Guard vessel, attended to provide rescue services," says the document filed in B.C. Supreme Court. It describes the Leviathan II as properly equipped and certified by Transport Canada, as well as complying with regulations regarding life-jackets and the distribution of passengers around the sightseeing craft. "The capsize occurred through a combination of sea conditions, wind and waves generated naturally in such a manner as to be unforeseeable and not preventable by exercise of ordinary care, caution and maritime skill," the document says. "Injury, loss, damage or expense was caused by an act of God, was totally accidental and/or unforeseeable in nature, or was caused or contributed by the negligence of others not presently known." None of the allegations have been tested in court. One Australian and five Britons died after the Leviathan II overturned with 24 passengers and three crew on board. The craft had a 46-person capacity. The Transportation Safety Board is conducting an investigation to determine what caused the vessel to capsize. The Barchfeld brothers, who were vacationing in Canada, are seeking compensation for alleged physical and psychological injuries. Five legal actions have already been filed in Federal Court involving 34 people in relation to the Leviathan II, says the response to civil claim. The tour operator argues in the document that the lawsuit should not be granted class-action status and that the action would be better heard in Federal Court so the question of liability can be answered alongside five preceding suits. The court document says that if any injury or loss was suffered, the blame lies with the case plaintiffs for not taking proper steps to mitigate any damage. That includes failing to seek or follow medical advice and failing to resume employment as soon as possible. JUST LUNCH: Customer Files Class Action Against Houston Franchise ----------------------------------------------------------------- L.M. Sixel, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that Jolynn Johnston, a resident of Fort Bend County, was very specific when she paid $12,000 to the dating service It's Just Lunch. She wanted to meet physically active men about her age, 50, who didn't have facial hair, tattoos or children. The service arranged six dates. Two of the men had tattoos and beards. Another wanted children. One was in a back brace. Needless to say, Johnston was not happy, and she became one of the many dissatisfied customers who have sued It's Just Lunch, a national franchise with a location in Houston. More than 130,000 clients are part of a separate class-action lawsuit in federal court in New York, where It's Just Lunch recently agreed to a settlement valued at $65 million. As part of the settlement, most of the clients will receive vouchers for two free dates, each valued at about $450. Ms. Johnston sued the Houston franchise in state district court in Fort Bend under the state deceptive trade practices act, claiming the matchmaker knew it could not deliver on its promise to find suitable partners. She is seeking a refund of her $12,000 fee along with $36,000 in damages. She was asked to join the New York class-action suit, but opted against it. "We laughed," recalled Nancy Knox-Bierman, Ms. Johnston's lawyer, at the possibility of more excursions with poorly matched suitors. Peter Shapiro, the lawyer representing It's Just Lunch in the New York class-action case, did not respond to requests for comment. Trevor Hall, owner of the Houston franchise of It's Just Lunch, declined to comment on the suit, citing client confidentiality, which prevents him from talking about customers. "We have always maintained the highest level of integrity and honesty in how we serve our clients and have thousands upon thousands of very happy clients as a result," Mr. Hall said in a statement. Ms. Johnston declined to be interviewed, her lawyer said. Ms. Johnston did not return a call seeking comment. It's Just Lunch is based in Florida and bills itself as a personalized dating service that arranges lunch dates or after- work drinks in low-pressure settings. The company, which got its start in 1991, sells franchises across the country. Ms. Johnston found out about It's Just Lunch from seeing an advertisement in an airline magazine, according to her lawyer. She signed up after visiting the company's Galleria-area office. Ms. Johnston, who owns an accounting business, lost her longtime partner in a motor vehicle accident, according to her lawyer. A busy professional, she upgraded to the company's "Elite" service as a way to find suitable men more quickly. "She didn't want to go on a million lousy dates," said Ms. Knox-Bierman. Ms. Johnston's experiences were not unique, according to the New York class-action suit. One It's Just Lunch member, a vegetarian, said she was paired with a pig farmer who described how he shoots his hogs behind the ear before slaughtering them, according to court documents. Another said she was paired with a man 6 inches shorter when she specifically said she wanted someone as tall as her. Other dating companies have run into legal difficulties. One site was sued for failing to prevent its clients from using stock photos of more photogenic people as their profile pictures. Other users have complained the sites aren't vetted for felons. Two years ago, the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with a dating service that generated fake computer-generated profiles to lure users into buying memberships to meet the man or woman of their dreams. The British company paid $616,165 to settle the claim. Diana Karni, a consumer rights lawyer in Houston, said disputes over dating services often turn on what exactly the companies are promising. Are they promising a pool of candidates who can meet a client's every criterion? Or, are they merely offering a pool of candidates in which clients might find a match? "What if he has everything she wants but he's tattooed from head to toe?" said Ms. Karni, who represents consumers but is not familiar with the Johnston case. "At what point do they need to make a determination not to match them up for lunch?" Emotion also comes into play, affecting the decisions of those looking for love, much as it can affect car buyers giddy over the latest model. "They can't really read the fine print because they're reading it with rose-colored glasses," said Ms. Karni. Documents in the class-action suit detailed some of the tactics that It's Just Lunch used to land clients. If one was reluctant, the salespeople were instructed to say they had two suitors in mind and ask when the new client might be available for an introduction, according to a tip sheet from "First Date University," the training program for It's Just Lunch franchises. The advice was on file as part of the New York case. Employees were also instructed to emphasize the size of their database of potential matches. "Reach over and grab your big stack of contracts on the clipboard," according to the tip sheet. Federal anti-discrimination measures prohibit employers and businesses from making hiring and public accommodation decisions based on race, sex, age, religion and national origin. Matchmaking service can't turn customers away based on age, sex, race, disability, religion and other protected factors, said Rick Anderson -- randerson@rmwbhlaw.com -- trial lawyer with Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey in Houston. But once they join, dating service members can state preferences based on those same protected factors, said Mr. Anderson, who represents companies sued over deceptive trade practices. LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Bismark Mairena-Rivera, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. Langston Construction, LLC and Composite Architectural Design Systems, LLC, and Michael Langston, Case No. 2:16-cv-04493 (E.D. Lo., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek. Langston Construction, LLC is in the business of installing precast concrete structural framing or panels and prefabricated windows and doors for commercial projects in various states, including Florida and Louisiana. Composite Architectural Design Systems, LLC is in the business of fabricating and installing aluminum composite material panels for commercial construction projects in various states, including Florida and Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily Westermeier, Esq. COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street,Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Minnesota Over False Product Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Hudock and Breann Hudock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and Bestbuy.Com, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-01220 (D. Minn., May 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased LG televisions labeled as having refresh rates of "120Hz" or "240Hz" when, in actuality, its televisions' refresh rates are 60Hz and 120Hz, respectively. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. sells home appliances, entertainment products, mobile communications products, and business solutions in the United States. Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and Bestbuy.Com, LLC operates a consumer electronics corporation headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Jason R. Lee, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com jason.lee@zimmreed.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com - and - Luke P. Hudock, Esq. HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C. P.O. Box 83 Muskego, WI 53150 Telephone: (414) 526-4906 E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Bamboo Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Tony Statz, writing for ClickonDetroit, reports that there have been a rash of headlines about Lumber Liquidators and a federal investigation surrounding the safety of some Chinese-made flooring. The flooring company also is facing a national class-action lawsuit over concerns about the quality of some bamboo flooring. A local family shared their story as a warning to customers in metro Detroit. "It was just demoralizing because we spent all this money and . . . we're left with a house that has problems all over the flooring," said James Rose, who has been working on this battle with his parents. First, a look back at a rocky time for Lumber Liquidators. In March of 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" reported the retailer's laminates from China contained excessive level of formaldehyde. Months later, the company stopped the sale of all Chinese-made flooring and the CEO resigned. Lumber Liquidators offered free independent air quality tests to give customers objective, scientific information about the flooring it has sold. Bamboo flooring battle As that problem was making national headlines, the Rose family of Lake Orion was fighting it's own battle with Lumber Liquidators over the Morning Star bamboo flooring they purchased in late 2014. The family paid about $11,000 for the flooring and installation started in February of 2015. The contractor hired by the family, Tom Perry, says he saw problems with the flooring immediately. He says the bamboo started to separate just days after he started to lay it down. "I've never had issue like this with any kind of flooring I've put in," said Mr. Perry, who has been in the home renovation business for 40 years. "I've worked with wood for a long time. I know it expands and retracts . . . but this wood started doing it two to three days after we installed it." The family was frustrated and started to appeal to Lumber Liquidators, looking for solutions. The contractor, Tom Perry, says he's guided several clients to Lumber Liquidators for flooring and never had an issue until now. He says a salesman told the family they wouldn't have any issues with the bamboo for 30 years. Class-action lawsuit That claim is reflected in a class-action lawsuit filed in California in December of 2014. Although it's received less publicity than the safety concerns, the suit raises some questions about Lumber Liquidators Morning Star bamboo flooring. The suit alleges Lumber Liquidators has created expectations that its bamboo flooring will last for 30 years, but claims "the product is subject to premature cracking, splitting, warping, and shrinking all well before the warranted useful life." The Rose family has reached out to the law firm behind the class- action suit and is considering whether they might join the suit or file their own legal action. "It's very upsetting because we're just a small family and we're going up against a multi-billion dollar corporation," said James Rose. Lumber Liquidators response In a letter to the Rose family, Lumber Liquidators blames the issues in their home on problems with installation and complaints there may have been too much humidity in the family's Lake Orion home. The contractor, Tom Perry, says he followed all the manufacturer specifications for installation. Mr. Perry and the Rose family are surprised humidity is getting the blame especially in Michigan. "Their humidity level, I think, as far as any house in Michigan is regulated as good as you can get it," said Mr. Perry. The Rose family would still like a full refund but Lumber Liquidators is not budging. The family says they never thought to ask the salesperson about humidity levels in their home before buying the bamboo flooring, and they want other customers in Michigan to know that's apparently something you should be asking when you're at the store. "I don't understand why they would sell a product in an area that has humidity that would impact all the homes," asks James Rose. Help Me Hank contacted Lumber Liquidators on behalf of the Rose family. The company said it could not discuss the lawsuit as it does not comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson released this statement: "Lumber Liquidators' bamboo products are popular and beautiful flooring options that, like all flooring products, require proper installation and a suitable home environment for peak performance. Lumber Liquidators clearly communicates these processes and requirements to customers at the time of purchase. Nonetheless, we regret Mr. Rose's experience and sent an inspector to his home. The inspector found that the contractor did not test for moisture as required and failed to install transition strips that allow floating floors to move as intended. These issues were compounded by humidity levels in the home above 55 percent, a level that's not only not ideal for flooring, but breeds mold and other health issues. Lumber Liquidators recommends ensuring a thorough understanding of the product instructions before purchase and installation." MARYLAND: Silver Spring Residents Sue Over Purple Line Route ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Simmons, writing for FOX5, reports that some Silver Spring residents who live along the proposed Purple Line light rail route are gearing up for a fight in court. They have filed a class action lawsuit against the Maryland Transit Administration claiming the authority is short-changing them on a fair price for the land they need for construction. For Andrew Hoddick, there will not be much of a front yard left once construction on Purple Line begins. The 16-mile light rail project will extend from Bethesda to New Carrollton. Mr. Hoddick told FOX 5 he is not against the Purple Line at all. "It's not about that," he said. "It's about what is just compensation. The property will be diminished. The train will be relatively close to our house and the state has said they don't expect there to be any diminished value to the rest of the property. I don't think that's true." Mr. Hoddick's next door neighbor, Isaac Kunnirickal, said he may consider joining the lawsuit. He said adding up the amount the state wants to pay for a chunk of his front yard and the property value hit he will likely take, the MTA's offer is a fraction of what it should be. "It's like taking your head off of your human body," he said. "If somebody takes your hand or your brain, it makes a difference, right? It's going to come right from the front of the house, so that's a problem." Construction on the Purple Line is expected to begin later this year on the Prince George's County side. MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of IPO Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in 2015 class action lawsuit related to its initial public offering, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 24, 2016. The Lead Plaintiff is due to file an opposition to that motion in mid-May, and the Company anticipates that the motion will be fully briefed by mid-June. The Company said, "We, certain of our officers and directors, and certain investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in connection with our initial public offering, have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed August 31, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by not including information regarding customer concentration, which the complaint characterizes as a known trend and/or significant factor required to be disclosed under federal securities regulations. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and other costs." "The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified damages." "We dispute the claims alleged in the lawsuit and intend to defend this matter vigorously." MaxPoint is a marketing technology company that generates hyperlocal intelligence to optimize brand and retail performance. MDL 1203: Court Awards Atty. Fees, Expenses to Levin Fishbein ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL No. 1203, No. 99-20593 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle III awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman for work performed in 2015. Levin-Fishbein, in its respective capacity as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel ("PLC"), Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and Class Counsel, petitioned for an award of attorneys' fees and expense reimbursements relating to work performed from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The court has previously awarded fees in Pretrial Order ("PTO") Nos. 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, 9102, 9294, and 9398. Levin-Fishbein sought an aggregate award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $751,037.50 from the AHP Settlement Trust (the "Trust") pursuant to the stipulation between Wyeth and Class Counsel with regard to the funding of future awards of class-related fees that was approved in PTO No. 9297. In addition, Levin-Fishbein requested an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $751,037.50 to be paid from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost account for MDL-related services performed during 2015. Finally, Levin-Fishbein incurred $12,874.18 in litigation expenses during 2015. The court has already authorized payment of $4,948.56 of these expenses from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account. Pursuant to PTO No. 7763, Levin-Fishbein sought an order directing the Settlement Fund to reimburse $2,474.28 to the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account. Levin-Fishbein petitioned for reimbursement of the remaining $7,925.62 in out-of-pocket expenses to be allocated for payment equally as between the Settlement Fund and the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account. Judge Bartle found that the requested 2015 award is reasonable. The judge granted an award of $751,037.50 from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account. Judge Bartle also directed that the settlement fund reimburse the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account in the amount of $2,474.28, which represents 50 percent of the expenses paid from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account during 2015. The judge also ordered that 50 percent of the out-of-pocket costs advanced by the Levin-Fishbein be reimbursed to it from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account and the remaining 50 percent be reimbursed from the settlement fund. A full-text copy of Judge Bartle's May 6, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/duhnMQ from Leagle.com. IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK -- jfitzpatrick@hdp.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK -- robb.patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER -- ted.mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP. HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA, Special Master, represented by HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA -- heather.giordanella@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP. MDL 2357: Court Rules on Zappos' Bid to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re ZAPPOS.COM, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, No. 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC, MDL No. 2357 (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones granted in part and denied, in part, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant, Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Zappos.com ("Zappos"). The judge also granted the defendant's Motion to Strike, three Motions to Seal, and a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Court said the so-called Prior Plaintiffs -- the Preira Plaintiffs (Preira, Ree, Simon, Hasner, Habashy, and Nobles) and the Stevens Plaintiffs (Stevens, Penson, Elliot, Brown, Seal, Relethford, and Braxton) -- have failed to allege instances of actual identity theft or fraud, as the Court gave them leave to do. The Court dismissed Prior Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. As to the new Plaintiffs -- Kristin O'Brien and Terri Wadsworth -- the Court said that at this stage of the case it is sufficient for purposes of standing to allege that Zappos sent its customers an e-mail notifying them that their PII had been compromised in a breach of its servers and that actual fraud occurred as a direct result of the breach. Whether or not New Plaintiffs' allegations suffer from defects that prevent them from ultimately prevailing in the case, the allegations show the connection between the alleged injury and breach is more than just hypothetical or tenuous. The Court finds that New Plaintiffs have standing. The multidistrict litigation case arose out of a security breach of Zappo.com's customer data. A full-text copy of Judge Jones's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/hylcYd from Leagle.com. In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by Brian C. Frontino -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- Julia B Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. McCoy -- mccoy@kcnvlaw.com -- Kaempfer Crowell & Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, David C OMara -- david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Jeremiah Frei- Pearson -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.co -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jon A Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Marc L. Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice & Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. Stephanie Priera, Shari Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C., Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.. Kathryn Vorhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.. Ms. Dahlia Habashy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei- Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.. Theresa D. Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Erich Schork, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Mark Gray, Gray & White, pro hac vice &Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Charles T. Lester, Jr., pro hac vice, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Howard M Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Tara J. Elliott, Brooke C. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC. Christa Seal, Kentucky Western, 3:12-cv-00037, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC. Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Zetha Nobles, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,Reginald V. Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.. Patti Hasner, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C., Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.. Denise Relethford, Emily E. Braxton, Plaintiffs, represented by David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.. Amazon.com, Inc., dba Zappos.com, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Frontino, Christine R Fitzgerald, Belcher, Starr & Fitzgerald, LLP, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Jeffrey B Bell, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia B Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. McCoy, Kaempfer Crowell & Stephen J. Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. MEDSTAR HEALTH: Court Narrows Plaintiffs in Hospital Staff Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DANIELLE FREEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-628 (CKK) (D.C.), Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as to the plaintiffs Melissa Gayle, Raina McCray, Lorraine Tyeryar, and Cherry Graziosl. Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion with respect to Gayle, McCray, and Tyeryar, but denied the motion with respect to Graziosi. A full-text copy of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's May 9, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/fBVLeD from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs are current and former hospital employees who brought claims against MedStar Health, Inc. and against six MedStar hospitals. The hospital defendants are two District of Columbia hospitals -- Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University Hospital -- and four Maryland hospitals-Franklin Square Hospital, Harbor Hospital, Union Memorial Hospital, and Good Samaritan Hospital. Essentially, the plaintiffs claimed that they were not paid for work that they conducted during their meal breaks. Under Count I, the plaintiffs brought individual claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against each of the defendants and sought to bring collective action claims under the FLSA with respect to four hospitals (Franklin Square, Harbor, Union Memorial, and Washington Hospital Center). Under Count II, the plaintiffs employed at the D.C. hospitals brought individual claims pursuant to the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs also sought to bring collective action claims with respect to Washington Hospital Center. Finally, the plaintiffs employed at the Maryland hospitals brought individual claims pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (Count III) and pursuant to the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law (Count IV). DANIELLE FREEMAN, LISA BRASWELL, MARGARET BROWN, DOROTHY EGGLESTON, MELISSA GAYLE, CHERRY GRAZIOSI, RAINA MCCRAY, DONNA ROWAN, LORRAINE TYERYAR, BETTYE TEAL, CATHLEEN KELLER, JANICE HARRIS, DONET DURRANT, LINDA HAGANS, Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Cohen, KOLMAN ELY, PC, Jason S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC. CYNTHIA SCOTT, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Rathod, MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A Migliaccio, MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., MEDSTAR WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER, MEDSTAR FRANKLIN SQUARE MEDICAL CENTER, MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MEDSTAR HARBOR HOSPITAL, MEDSTAR UNION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendants, represented by Joshua B. Waxman -- jwaxman@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Steven E. Kaplan -- skaplan@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Angelo Spinola, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & Sarah Elizabeth Henninger -- lhenninger@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.. MERCY HEALTH: "Grasle" Sues over Underfunded Retirement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ Gene Grasle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Mercy Health, Mercy Health Benefits Committee and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00651 (E.D. Mo., May 10, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction removing Defendants as Plan fiduciaries, civil money penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, equitable lien, constructive trust or other remedy, attorney fees and expenses under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Grasle was employed by Mercy Health home health care delivery, courier/logistics and in the security department. Mercy Health is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. It is the sponsor of Mercy Health MyRetirement Personal Pension Account Plan of which the Plaintiff is a member. Grasle alleges that the Plan was underfunded by at least $340 million. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don R. Lolli, Esq. DYSART TAYLOR COTTER MCMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 931-2700 Facsimile: (816) 931-7377 Email: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com mgyandoh@ktmc.com jsjohnson@ktmc.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 Email: rizard@izardnobel.com mkindall@izardnobel.com dneedham@izardnobel.com MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of WARN Act Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the trustee for defunct Microfibres Inc. is asking a federal Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss a WARN Act lawsuit filed by two former Microfibres employees. The trustee, Joseph DiOrio, claims the company is not financially liable to the workforce "because it was a faltering business when it ceased operations." The company, based in Pawtucket, R.I., filed for Chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy protection Jan. 29 with plans to liquidate its assets -- the same day it closed its Winston-Salem and Pawtucket plants. Two Winston-Salem employees, Dawn Phillips and Cedric Williams, filed an amended WARN complaint Feb. 9. They request class-action status for the lawsuit and at least $1.5 million in damages. About 125 employees in Winston-Salem and 60 in Pawtucket are projected to be covered by WARN protections. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act was enacted in 1989 with the intent of preventing situations where rank-and- file employees show up for work only to discover that their employer has shut down without notice. The act does this by requiring companies that are planning large job cuts -- defined as more than 50 employees -- to notify their state and local governments, as well as affected workers, at least 60 days in advance. The act provides certain benefits to laid-off workers, such as 60 days of pay and benefit contributions if the closing is immediate, and access to COBRA insurance benefits for 60 days. However, the U.S. Labor Department has no authority to enforce WARN regulations, hear employee complaints, investigate potential wrongdoing or file lawsuits representing employees. Employees must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights. The local workforce at the 3821 Kimwell Drive plant had as many as 270 employees as recently as 2004. The company ended U.S. production in response to domestic and global textiles challenges. Mr. DiOrio said Microfibres acted in good faith toward its employees, including paying them "in full for compensation they were owed." The plaintiffs want priority administrative claim status for employees, meaning they typically would be first in line after secured creditors are paid. They want the first $12,745 of each employee's claim listed as a priority administrative claim, and the remaining amount as a general unsecured claim. Mr. DiOrio said the plaintiffs should be required to follow the creditors' process for handling their claims. He argues there is no legal necessity for a class-action lawsuit involving the WARN Act. "Plaintiffs and the proposed class provided no services that benefited the estate, and any damages they receive are not entitled to administrative priority," he wrote. Webster Bank has a $3.1 million secured claim against Microfibres. Unsecured creditors had claims of $12.6 million. Among Microfibres' largest unsecured creditors are $215,683 owed to the Forsyth County general fund for unpaid taxes; and $107,772 to the city of Winston-Salem for utilities services. Employers can be ordered to pay the attorney fees and court costs of affected workers who sue and win. Employers who don't give proper notice to the state may have to pay fines, but that money goes to the state. MILES ENTERPRISES: "Jabrani" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Kais Jabrani, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Miles Enterprises, Inc., JMRMJ Pizza LLC and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02620-JBS-AMD (D.N.J, May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Minimum Wage Law. Defendants operate 26 Domino's franchise stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania where the Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver to deliver pizzas and other food items to customers. Defendants allegedly paid below the federal and New Jersey minimum wage rates and require their delivery drivers to pay for their own uniform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Kenneth B. Fromson, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLC 445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Email: Kfromson@lawampm.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Bid in "Viceral" Due June 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15- CV-02198-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order vacating all pending dates as a result of the parties' Notice of Settlement, including the status conference set for May 12, 2016. Judge Chen also ordered the following briefing and hearing schedule pursuant to the parties' stipulation to set a preliminary approval schedule: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be filed by June 2, 2016. -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval shall take place before the court on June 23, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. The parties have jointly submitted a Joint Status Report, Notice of Settlement, and Stipulation and Proposed Order to Vacate All Pending Dates and Set Preliminary Approval Schedule, pursuant to the court's December 30, 2015 Case Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial and the Clerk's January 13, 2016 Notice. The parties further submitted a stipulation to vacate all pending dates and set preliminary approval schedule pursuant the court's Standing Order No. 4. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/j79m7S from Leagle.com. Edgar Viceral, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Keenan Locks Klein, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP, Nicole Nellessen Coon -- ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Tina Mehr, Marlin & Saltzman LLP & Walter Lewis Haines, United Employees Law Group, P.C.. David Krueger, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman & Nicole Nellessen Coon, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. Mistras Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Alan Schwachter -- jschwachter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Angela Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Richard Keith Chapman -- kchapman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. NEW YORK: Two Plaintiffs Withdraw Marathon Claims ------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that this January, a proposed class action sweepstakes lawsuit filed on behalf of all runners who entered the New York City Marathon's ("Marathon") general entry drawing ("Drawing") between 2010 and 2015. In April, two of the named plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims against the Marathon's organizer and operator -- New York Road Runners, Inc. ("Road Runners") -- after Road Runners moved to compel the two plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. What can sweepstakes sponsors do to stay out of plaintiffs' crosshairs? New York City Marathon's Drawing and Sweepstakes Lawsuits In order to compete in the Marathon, most prospective runners must apply via the Drawing and pay Road Runners a non-refundable "processing fee" of $11. However, court records suggest that fewer than 18% of the 80,000 prospective runners that participated in the Drawing from 2010-2015 won a spot in the Marathon. This January, two residents of Utah who entered the Drawing but were passed over for the Marathon sued Road Runners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:16-cv-00450-KBF), claiming to represent all those who entered the Drawing in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and/or 2015, respectively, and suffered damages as a result. The sweepstakes lawsuit alleges that Road Runners conducted an illegal lottery because each member of the class purportedly risked something of value (the entry fee) upon the outcome of a game of chance (the Drawing) for the opportunity to receive something of value (qualification to run in the Marathon). Less than two weeks later, a separate class action plaintiff commenced legal action against Road Runners in the Southern District (1:16-cv-00791-KBF) with similar claims related to the Road Runners Marathon and Drawing. This March, the Court consolidated the two sweepstakes lawsuits. Road Runners' Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration In April, Road Runners filed a motion to compel arbitration of the allegations of two of the Plaintiffs and to stay the consolidated sweepstakes lawsuit pending the completion of those arbitration proceedings. According to Road Runners, when two of the named class action plaintiffs sought entry into the 2015 Marathon, they each agreed to arbitrate any claims arising out of or relating to their participation in any Road Runners event or activity. Road Runners further claimed that the two plaintiffs agreed not to pursue claims against Road Runners collectively or as part of a class action. In light of these arbitration and class/collective waiver provisions, Road Runners asked the Court to order the two subject plaintiffs to resolve their claims in individual arbitrations and stay Plaintiffs' remaining claims in the consolidated sweepstakes lawsuit pending the outcome of the allegedly arbitrable claims. Withdrawal of Two Plaintiffs On April 20, 2016, in response to Road Runners' motion to compel, the two plaintiffs in question voluntarily withdrew all of their claims against Road Runners without prejudice. The subject plaintiffs further agreed not to pursue arbitration of their claims. In light of the foregoing, Road Runners has agreed to withdraw its motion. It appears that the consolidated case will proceed with one named plaintiff seeking to represent the class of prospective runners. How to Avoid a Sweepstakes Lawsuit Although two plaintiffs' claims in the above-referenced actions have been eliminated following their voluntary withdrawal from the proposed class action, it appears that the defendant's legal battles are far from over. Specific state and federal laws apply to contests, sweepstakes and drawings. Non-compliant sweepstakes and contests could be deemed illegal lotteries, which would place their sponsors at risk of significant legal liability. Such promotions should be carefully vetted by an experienced marketing attorney before their launch to ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. PACIFIC BELL: Order Striking "Rel" Class Allegations Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five reversed the trial court's order striking the class allegations from the seventh amended complaint in the case captioned ANGELA REL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A144349 (Cal. Ct. App.). A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 9, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/19CdS1 from Leagle.com. The action was initiated by Diane Tucker in December 2003 as a putative private attorney general under the unfair competition law. Tucker challenged the respondents' marketing of their "bucket plans," which essentially purported to give subscribers a specified number of minutes of use for a monthly rate. After the voters enacted Proposition 64, Tucker lacked standing to proceed with the UCL claims. Appellants Angela Rel and Monica Hodge, along with Julia Knapp, were later added to the action as plaintiffs. PADUCAH, KY: "Youngblood" Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------- In the case captioned ERICA YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF PADUCAH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-CV-00060-TBR (W.D. Ky.), Judge Thomas B. Russell granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Erica Youngblood's claims. The plaintiff, Erica Youngblood is the daughter of Eric C. Youngblood and Melissa Youngblood. The action arises out of the execution of a search warrant at the Youngblood's home by the Paducah Police Department. Youngblood alleged that on the morning of October 31, 2008, she was preparing for school. At 6:07 a.m., Assistant Chief Danny Carroll and Detective Troy Brown entered her residence. Carroll and Brown interrupted the plaintiff while she was in the bathroom and yelled at her to "get in the living room and sit down." For the next twenty-seven minutes, Carroll and Turner "stood guard" over Youngblood and her family. At 6:34 a.m., "approximately thirteen" members of the Drug and Vice Enforcement ("DAVE") Unit entered "like a herd of wild Bison." As they entered, officers "pointed and/or trained their military style weapons on my family and me." Youngblood alleged she was detained for "what seemed like sixty (60) minutes or so." Youngblood was "in tears" during the ordeal. Upon returning to school she was humiliated and teased by fellow students. Youngblood's parents were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The plaintiff's parents, Eric C. Youngblood and Melissa Youngblood previously filed a lawsuit ("Youngblood I") alleging the Paducah Police Department violated their substantive and procedural due process rights, among other claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Paducah, the sole defendant in Youngblood I. The plaintiff, Erica Youngblood, was a minor at the time of the events. The plaintiff was also not a party to Youngblood I. After reaching the age of majority, Erica Youngblood filed this action. A full-text copy of Judge Russell's May 6, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/OcneBk from Leagle.com. The City of Paducah, Danny Carrol, William Gilbert, Nathanial Young, John Toliver, Joe Hayes, Troy Turner, Defendants, represented by Stacey A. Blankenship -- sblankenship@kkhblaw.com -- Keuler Kelly Hutchins & Blankenship, LLP. PAYPAL INC: Court Strikes Objection to "Zepeda" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California tossed a 19-page objection filed by Sam A. Miorelli, an attorney acting pro se, to the proposed class action settlement in the case, MOISES ZEPEDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C 10-2500 SBA (N.D. Cal.). The Court noted that its Standing Order, which counsel should have reviewed before submitting his filing, clearly state that briefs (other than those relating to summary judgment motions) are limited to 15 pages. The objection also is untimely. A copy of the Court's May 13, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/wxe938 from Leagle.com. Moises Zepeda et al., represented by Michael Vincent Storti, Alfredo Torrijos -- alfredo@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos, LLP, Brian Stephen Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law Group, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark N. Todzo, Lexington Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck Kellner LLP. Paypal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Taylor Potter -- bpotter@stroock.com -- David Wesley Moon -- dmoon@stroock.com -- and Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. Perkins Tammy, Defendant, represented by Matt Kurilich. Walley Collins, Objector, represented by Anthony Albert Ferrigno, Law Ofcs of Anthony A. Ferrigno, John David Franklin, Franklin & Franklin & Pamela Elizabeth Havird, Law Offices of Pamela E. Havird. Lucinda Christian, Objector, represented by Anthony Albert Ferrigno, Law Ofcs of Anthony A. Ferrigno, John David Franklin, Franklin & Franklin & Pamela Elizabeth Havird, Law Offices of Pamela E. Havird. PETRO RIVER: Donelson-Friend Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------- Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that Martha Donelson and John Friend on August 11, 2014, amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding"). The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the August 11, 2014 Proceeding on various procedural and legal arguments. Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014. Spyglass filed its reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted leave until November 19, 2014 to file a reply to Spyglass' reply brief. "Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19, 2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the court. Oral arguments may be ordered by the court. There is no specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling," the Company said. * * * On March 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denied Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery From Federal Defendants. The request is denied without prejudice to being reasserted after the resolution of the motions to dismiss. A copy of that decision is available at https://is.gd/wfjkE9 from Leagle.com. In a March 31 Opinion and Order, District Judge James H. Payne ruled on sixteen Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by each of the 27 named Defendants in this case. A copy of that decision is available at https://is.gd/Hov0QP from Leagle.com. Judge Payne ruled that the sovereign immunity of the United States is not waived, and this action must be dismissed as to the Federal Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Payne also held that there is no independent basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the non-Federal Defendants in this case. For this reason, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against the non-Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs' claims against the non- Federal Defendants must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or alternatively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Cyber Claim Insurance Coverage Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul K. Stockman, Joshua D. Davey and Akiesha R. Gilcrist, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in a decision issued April 11, the Fourth Circuit added to a small but growing body of case law across the country finding coverage for cyber claims under traditional general liability insurance policies. In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC, No. 14-1944, -- F. App'x -- 2016 WL 1399517 (4th Cir. April 11, 2016), the court affirmed a federal district court's ruling that Travelers Indemnity Company of America ("Travelers") must defend its insured, Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC ("Portal"), in a putative class-action lawsuit alleging that Portal published the plaintiffs' private medical records on the Internet. The underlying lawsuit against Portal was filed by plaintiffs Dara Halliday and Teresa Green in New York state court. The plaintiffs alleged that Portal had allowed their private medical records to remain on an unsecured server for several months, making them publicly available on the Internet for anyone to see. Portal was insured under two insurance policies issued by Travelers -- one spanning the period from January 2012 to January 2013, and another spanning from January 2013 to January 2014. The policies covered Portal for damages caused by "electronic publication of material that . . . gives unreasonable publicity to a person's private life" or the "electronic publication of material that . . . discloses information about a person's private life." Travelers filed a lawsuit against Portal in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Portal against the underlying New York putative class-action claims. Travelers argued that the complaint failed to allege a covered publication by Portal for two reasons: First, Travelers argued that "publication" under the policy required intentional publication, rather than mere inadvertent disclosure. Second, Travelers contended that there was no "publication" because the underlying complaint did not allege that anyone, other than the plaintiffs, actually viewed the medical records online. The district court rejected these arguments, finding that exposing confidential medical records to online searching is "publication" giving "unreasonable publicity" to, or "disclos[ing]" information about, a person's private life, and holding that Travelers was duty bound under the policies to defend Portal against the class- action complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The court emphasized that the district court had correctly applied the "eight corners rule" -- which looks to the terms of the policy and the allegations in the complaint -- to determine whether Travelers had a duty to defend. Turning to the "publication" issue, the court noted its agreement with the district court's conclusion that the class-action complaint "at least potentially or arguably" alleged a "publication" of private medical information by Portal that constituted conduct covered under the applicable policies and affirmed the district court's ruling that Travelers was required to defend Portal against the New York class-action complaint. Some may argue that the decision in Portal is "too little, too late." It can arguably be seen as "too little," in that there remains a divergence in the case law that encourages strategic insurer claim denial (particularly in jurisdictions that lack a robust policyholder remedy for insurer bad faith). For example, insurers continue to rely on the ill-reasoned trial court decision in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Sony Corp. of America, where the New York trial court held that there was no coverage unless the "publication" was made by the policyholder, rather than hackers. The fact that the decision is unreported further limits its potential precedential impact. The decision may also arguably be seen as "too late," in that the insurance industry has promulgated endorsements that are intended to minimize or eliminate the potential for cyber-breach coverage under general liability policies. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit's decision in Portal is noteworthy for at least two reasons. First, the court's broad reading of the policy term "publication" will benefit policyholders seeking coverage for data breach claims involving inadvertent disclosure of information. Second, the decision underscores the importance of considering the possibility of coverage for cyber events under traditional policies -- such as commercial general liability, directors and officers, and errors and omissions policies -- despite efforts by the insurance industry to exclude cyber claims from traditional policies and force insureds to purchase dedicated cyber coverage. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment for Magee & Peterson Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned NACOLA MAGEE and JAMES PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 12 cv 1624 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John W. Darrah denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and II. The judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's May 9, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/x2WyOS from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs, Nacola Magee and James Peterson brought the class action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Nacola Magee, James Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by David M Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, Avanti Bakane -- abakane@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Jennifer W. Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLC & Katherine H. Oblak -- ktresley@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson Llp. PREMIER FOODS: Court to Hear Victims' Bread Cartel Claims --------------------------------------------------------- BDlive reports that the Constitutional Court was on May 10 scheduled to hear from the alleged victims of the Western Cape bread cartel why they should be allowed to sue Premier Foods. They are challenging a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that effectively let Premier Foods off the hook for its role in the 2006 bread cartel, by setting aside a declaration that opened it up to lawsuits. Without the declaration -- issued by the Competition Tribunal, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the National Consumer Forum and other parties that are planning a class action against the bread cartelists -- they cannot sue Premier Foods. Premier Foods, which makes Blue Ribbon bread and owns brands such as Snowflake, Iwisa and Dove, was granted immunity under the Competition Commission's corporate leniency policy in exchange for assisting it in the investigation of the cartel. Premier Foods then gave evidence against fellow cartelists Tiger Brands and Pioneer Foods and blew the whistle on Foodcorp, which it had colluded with on a national scale. It argued that the certification declaring that it had acted unlawfully under competition laws should not have been issued against it because it had immunity, and the SCA agreed. The Competition Commission and the cartel's alleged victims are appealing against the SCA's ruling. Lawyer Charles Abrahams, acting for the alleged victims, said in court papers that Premier Foods had only challenged the declaration after his clients attempted to take civil action against it. He said that their application for class action certification, currently pending before the High Court in Cape Town, against the cartelists will continue after the appeal, with or without Premier Foods. Pioneer Foods was fined R195.7m for its involvement in the cartel while Tiger Brands and Foodcorp negotiated fines of more than R98m and R45m, respectively. PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: "Johnson" Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint with prejudice in the case captioned MICHAEL B. JOHNSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUSHPIN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2771 (7th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Court's May 6, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/TYcoAS from Leagle.com. The class-action suit accused Pushpin Holdings, a debt collector, along with its owners and affiliates, of having violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and committed related torts, all in the course of attempting to collect debts in Illinois. RBC CAPITAL: Dragged in N.Y., Canadian Suits v. FX Dealers ---------------------------------------------------------- United States Gasoline Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was added as a new defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. The action is in its initial stages as it relates to the new defendants, including RBC Capital Markets, LLC. 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. The United States Gasoline Fund, LP ("UGA") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on April 13, 2007. UGA maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). REDFIN CORP: Bid for Curative Notice in "Cruz" Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IVONNETH CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-05234-TEH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Thelton E. Henderson denied the plaintiff's motion for curative notice. Ivonneth Cruz worked as a Field Agent for the defendant, Redfin after signing a Field Agent Independent Contractor Agreement which contained an arbitration clause. In a putative class action, Cruz alleged that Redfin misclassified her as an independent contractor. On December 1, 2015, the court granted Redfin's motion to compel arbitration, but in doing so, found that three provisions in the agreement were unconscionable: the fee-shifting provision, the forum selection clause, and the choice of law clause. The court severed the unconscionable provisions, but found the remainder of the agreement valid and enforceable, including the agreement's delegation of the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court stayed the action pending arbitration. Cruz then filed the Motion for Curative Notice on April 11, 2016. Judge Henderson found that ordering curative notice would be inappropriate given the factual and procedural posture of the action. The judge explained that a motion for curative notice may be more proper when putative class members who may be actually harmed by the clauses in the agreement can be identified, and after the arbitrator has made a decision as to arbitrability; the court may consider entertaining such a motion at that time. A full-text copy of Judge Henderson's May 9, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/1jXbF7 from Leagle.com. Ivonneth Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman B. Blumenthal, Blumentha, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Redfin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Macomber Weeks -- kweeks@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP, Michael A. Hoffman, III -- mhoffman@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP & Ronald D. Arena -- rarena@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP. ROCK CREEK: "Baldwin" Amended Complaint Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court granted a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the "Baldwin" consumer class action. The Company said, "On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class action naming our company, RCP Development (our subsidiary), and GNC Holding, Inc. ("GNC") as defendants. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for our Anatabloc (R) product have not been proven and that individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended purposes of the product. The complaint purported to allege claims for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. We have agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent with that commitment, we have agreed to assume the defense of this matter on our own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice." "On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint against our company, RCP Development and GNC (collectively, "Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri. The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc (R) dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and a "Missouri Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc (R) dietary supplement in Missouri between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under Illinois law; (4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7) unjust enrichment. "Like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc (R) , a dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid, and promoted Anatabloc (R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation (associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these claims in clinical trials or received FDA approval for Anatabloc (R) , and that Anatabloc (R) "was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Anatabloc (R) based upon claims that it provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he purchased Anatabloc (R) to "reduce inflammation and pain in his joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and knee problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc (R) to be effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc (R) to help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that Anatabloc (R) did not provide the relief promised by the Defendants. "Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of several additional states like the original complaint, on February 10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535; California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399; Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3); Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc (R) ," and demands that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches and return all monies paid by putative class members." The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on April 22, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the Court entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in place in the case. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests on May 18, 2015, to which we responded on June 17, 2015. "We are continuing to produce responsive documents to the Plaintiffs on a rolling basis," the Company said. On February 2, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and dismissing all claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims under Illinois and Missouri law for breach of express and implied warranty were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Court has allowed Plaintiffs 28 days to file a Second Amended Complaint. The next status hearing before the Court was scheduled for March 22, 2016. To date, no amounts for loss contingency have been accrued in the consolidated financial statements. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned APRIL LINDBLOM, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-990-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill denied the motion filed by Santander Consumer USA, Inc. for judgment on the pleadings. April Lindblom brought a proposed class action against Santander for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), California Civil Code, associated with the fees former defendant Western Union charged borrowers when making payments on loans to Santander by phone or internet. Santander moved for judgment on the pleadings on Lindblom's Rosenthal Act claim on the ground that Lindblom does not state a claim because Santander's conduct did not violate the Act. A full-text copy of Judge O'Neill's May 9, 2016 memorandum decision and order is available at https://is.gd/xMT8uZ from Leagle.com. April Lindblom, Plaintiff, represented by D. Frank Davis -- fdavis@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac vice, John E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac vice, Wesley W. Barnett -- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac vice & Benjamin P. Tryk, Tryk Law, PC. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders Llp, R. Frank Springfield -- fspringfield@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP, pro hac vice, Virginia Bell Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Zachary D. Miller -- zachary.miller@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP, pro hac vice & Justin M Brandt -- justin.brandt@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. SHUTTERFLY: Settles Class Action Over Facial Recognition Tech ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Campbell, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Shutterfly has settled a class action suit alleging the online photo sharing site violated Illinois privacy laws by creating a system permitting photos to be stored and searched using facial recognition technology. The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed. The plaintiff, Brian Norberg, had filed suit claiming the Redwood City, Calif.-based Shutterfly and its Palo Alto, Calif.-based subsidiary, ThisLife, had systems that relied upon various "biometric identifiers" to identify the faces of people in the uploaded photos, essentially telling who is who in the pictures, recognizing their gender, age, race, and location. However, because Shutterfly failed to secure the permission of those tagged in the photos and store their biometric information, the system broke the Illinois law, the complaint alleged. According to Mr. Norberg his likeness was first stored without his consent in February 2015 when a Shutterfly user created a wedding invitation that included his image. Around five months later, more photos of Mr. Norberg's likeness were subsequently uploaded to ThisLife and Shutterfly's program allegedly automatically recognizing Norberg's face from the template it had created, encouraging the person who uploaded the photos to tag Mr. Norberg, and in the process attaching Mr. Norberg's name to his facial template without his consent. Shutterfly's motion to dismiss Mr. Norberg's complaint was rejected on Dec. 29 by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle. As the Illinois BIPA "prohibits private entities from collecting biometric information from individuals absent express consent . . . following a written disclosure," Judge Norgle said Mr. Norberg's allegations were sufficient to dismiss Shutterfly's dismissal attempt. Just about four months since that ruling, however, Shutterfly and Mr. Norberg have settled the case for an undisclosed amount. Linn Freedman, a partner at Robinson+Cole who followed the case, said she is not surprised that a settlement was reached. "My sense is that the parties agreed to a settlement to terminate the litigation, which is prolonged and costly," she said. "Since it is the first known settlement under the law, it is important for Shutterfly and other companies using facial recognition technology to keep the terms confidential as the settlement does not admit any liability." Facebook is currently battling a similar case in California, in which plaintiffs alleged the social media company collected facial data through its facial recognition software. Freedman, though, doesn't believe others will necessarily follow Mr. Norberg. "Because the issue is somewhat unsettled, I don't anticipate that there will be other suits that follow until there is definitive guidance," she said. SNYDER'S LANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Crocker" Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge STEPHEN L. CROCKER of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied on May 10, 2016, a motion by Pamela A. Sweeney, a self-styled pro se objector in the lawsuit captioned TODD BARRON, ADELE FERRERA, MATTHEW MCDONOUGH and DAVID KORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SNYDER'S LANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-mc-06-slc/SDF Case No. 13-62496 LENARD/GOODMAN, to stay discovery and to quash a Rule 45 subpoena that requires her deposition in Madison on May 12, 2016. The Judge ordered that Pamela A. Sweeney must comply with the Rule 45 subpoena in all respects. Failure to do so could result in the sanctions set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Southern District of Florida's February 12, 2016 order, as well as possible contempt sanctions imposed by this court. This is the third motion to quash filed in this court within the past week by Ms. Sweeney or by Patrick Sweeney, but the other two resolved themselves without this court entering a captioned order. SPRINT CORP: Time to Respond to "Bekkerman" Suit Moved to June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALINA BEKKERMAN; BRANDON GRIFFITH; JENNY LEE; and CHARLES LISSER, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AT&T, INC.; SPRINT CORPORATION; T-MOBILE US, INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants and Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-MCE- EFB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the District Court for the Eastern District of California approved a Joint Stipulation continuing the time for the Carrier Defendants to respond to the Complaint from May 9, 2016 up to and including June 6, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order dated May 12, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/Ay1fMX from Leagle.com. SQUARE INC: "Levin" Action Goes to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------- Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has sent the lawsuit by Jeffry Levin to arbitration. The Company said, "we are involved in a class action lawsuit concerning independent contractors in connection with our Caviar business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against our wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by requiring them to pay various business expenses that should have been borne by Caviar. Mr. Levin is also seeking an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), on behalf of the putative class." "On June 30, 2015, we filed a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On November 16, 2015, the Court granted Caviar's motion to compel arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims and found the waiver of the representative California Labor Code cause of action under PAGA unenforceable under a recent appellate court ruling. "On January, 22, 2016, the Court ruled that an arbitrator will determine whether the PAGA claim is arbitrable or should move forward in court. This arbitration has not yet been initiated. We will continue to vigorously defend against Mr. Levin's claims. Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible to reliably determine any potential liability that could result from this matter." "We started Square in February 2009 to enable anyone with a mobile device to accept card payments, anywhere, anytime. While we found early success providing easy access to card payments, commerce extends beyond payments. In every transaction, we see opportunity for our sellers: to learn more about which products are selling best, to reinvest in their businesses, or to create and engage loyal buyers. Although we currently generate approximately 94% of our total net revenue from payment processing services, which include revenue generated from Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks), we have extended our product and service offerings to include additional point-of-sale (POS) services, financial services and marketing services, all to help sellers start, run, and grow their businesses." STARBUCKS CORP: "Crittenden" Sues Over Under-filled Espresso ------------------------------------------------------------ Brittany Crittenden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03496 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016) seeks damages as a result of breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and/or inducement, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment for violation of New York General Business Law. Plaintiff alleges that Starbucks espresso beverages contain less fluid ounces per serving size than the Defendant otherwise advertises. Starbucks is a global coffee shop business with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Weiner, Esq. Murray Friedman, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Tel: (646) 380-9555 Fax: (646) 790-3851 Email: brittany@lawicm.com murray@lawicb.com STATE FARM: Bid to Vacate or Suspend Discovery Order Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMANDA M. LaBRIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-04093-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey denied the motion filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to vacate or suspend Special Master Leland Shurin's Discovery Order No. 4, as amended. On April 6, 2016, the Special Master ordered State Farm to answer the plaintiff Amanda LaBrier's second set of interrogatories by May 6, 2016. State Farm objected to the Special Master's order, arguing the interrogatories are unduly burdensome and the order penalizes State Farm for its record keeping. Judge Laughrey, however, concluded that the Special Master did not abuse his discretion in entering the order. A full-text copy of Judge Laughrey's May 9, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/DLcgyf from Leagle.com. Leland Maurice Shurin, Special Master, represented by Leland M. Shurin -- lshurin@sls-law.com -- Shaffer Lombardo Shurin. Amanda LaBrier, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E Roberts -- croberts@butschroberts.com -- Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC, pro hac vice, David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC, pro hac vice, Joe D. Jacobson -- jacobson@archcitylawyers.com -- Jacobson Press & Fields PC &T. Joseph Snodgrass -- jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, pro hac vice. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph A Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan P. Poscablo -- rposcablo@rshc-law.com -- pro hac vice, Tal C. Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice & Daniel E. Wilke, Wilke & Wilke, P.C.. STERICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Service Fee Hike ---------------------------------------------------- HartfordBusiness.com reports that two West Hartford physicians have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing one of the country's largest medical-waste disposal service providers of illegally jacking up service fees. But they aren't alone. The April 28 complaint against Illinois-based Stericycle -- filed by Drs. Murray Wellner and Harvey Hameroff -- comes on the heels of at least 18 similar class-action suits that have been filed in multiple states against the $8-billion public company over the past three years, according to court records. Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's complaint, which seeks class-action status, estimates there could be thousands of Stericycle customers in Connecticut, including physicians, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacies and other businesses that generate medical waste, whose aggregate claims against the company exceed $5 million. At the heart of the Connecticut suit, and those that preceded it, is the contention that Stericycle's customer-service agreements were deceptive or misleading. Fine Print Challenged The contracts -- several examples have been filed in federal court -- list a flat monthly, quarterly or annual service fee on the front page. But further into the agreement, the fine print says Stericycle has the right to change pricing to account for specific scenarios, such as rising operational costs, or to comply with changes in law. The lawsuits argue that Stericycle routinely charged automatic price increases as high as 18 percent, and that they were unrelated to rising costs or legal changes. The two Connecticut doctors allege that Stericycle steadily increased their service fees, from $181 in 2006 to $1,581 last year. The suit claims the increases were part of "a systematic practice and policy that Stericycle regularly employs to generate revenues," and that wasn't disclosed to customers when they signed their agreements. Their complaint said the alleged actions amount to breach of contract and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Stericycle claims more than 1 million customers and 25,000 employees around the world. More than half of its workforce is in the United States, including an unknown number at a Middletown location. As of May 5, Stericycle had not yet filed a formal response to the complaint in court. The company did not return a call seeking comment for this story. Lawsuits mounting Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's civil suit is the latest in a growing number of similar billing-related lawsuits, known as "tag-along" or "follow-on" actions, that Stericycle faces. The class actions began mounting in 2013 and a federal judicial panel has since consolidated 18 lawsuits from Stericycle's non- government customers in a dozen states under a federal court in Illinois, where the company is headquartered. It's possible Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's complaint will join them. Three of the law firms representing the two doctors are involved in several of the 18 consolidated cases, the latest of which was filed April 8 in Alabama, according to court records. Dr. Wellner declined comment and his and Dr. Hameroff's attorney didn't return calls for comment. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the Seattle-based law firm appointed as lead counsel for the consolidated plaintiffs in Illinois, said the Connecticut case will "almost certainly" join the 18 others because it "asserts essentially identical claims." Hagens Berman asked a judge in January to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs. That hadn't yet happened. Roots of the Class-Action Frenzy The class-action frenzy was sparked by public revelations in 2013 that numerous state governments were suing Stericycle over alleged improper price increases. In January of that year, a judge unsealed a 2008 whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former Stericycle employee, which contained the first publicly known allegations that Stericycle had improperly increased prices billed to government customers. Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., joined the complaint in 2010, which eventually settled in 2015 for $28.5 million. New York's attorney general settled separately for $2.4 million. Stericycle has said in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings that the whistleblower settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing or liability, and that it settled the suit to "avoid the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation." Stericycle has denied the allegations made by the flurry of lawsuits that soon followed. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit," Stericycle said in its 2015 annual report, filed with the SEC in March. "We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits." Stericycle said it couldn't estimate possible losses from ongoing lawsuits. CT's Stericycle dealings Two New England states -- Massachusetts and Rhode Island -- received a piece of last year's $28.5 million whistleblower settlement, but Connecticut was not a party to the suit, although the state has done business with Stericycle. Since 2012, the state has paid the company approximately $334,000 for hazardous-waste-disposal services, mainly at correctional facilities and hospitals, according to data on the State Comptroller's website, opencheckbook.ct.gov. Stericycle also has an active four-year contract for disposal services with the state that runs through 2018, records show. It wasn't immediately clear if the state had any contracts with Stericycle prior to June 2010, which is when more than a dozen states joined the whistleblower suit. Attorney General George Jepsen was elected in late 2010, five months after other states joined the lawsuit. His spokeswoman Jaclyn Falkowski said that the office has no Stericycle-related complaints from state agencies on file from the past two years, which is the length of time the office keeps records not related to litigation. She said Connecticut also didn't join the whistleblower suit because Stericycle's alleged conduct took place prior to the state legislature enacting its own whistleblower law, known as the False Claims Act. In addition, until 2014, the act only applied to false Medicaid claims, she said. Massive growth, antitrust concerns Mr. Jepsen's predecessor, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, tangled with Stericycle at least once, records show. In 2002, when Stericycle announced it intended to buy medical- waste-disposal businesses from Georgia-based Scherer Healthcare, a competitor with a substantial New England customer base, then Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal expressed concern about the potential anticompetitive impacts of the deal. Blumenthal negotiated a voluntary seven-year agreement that required Stericycle to notify his office in advance of further acquisitions of medical-waste businesses operating in the New England market. Ms. Falkowski said the AG's office has no such notices on file. Massachusetts was also involved in the acquisition settlement, requiring Stericycle to divest a medical-waste transfer station in the northeastern part of the state. At the time, Stericycle had been operating in Connecticut for eight years. Massive Revenue Growth Founded in 1989, the company bought Middletown-based Safe Way Disposal in 1994, two years before going public. Stericycle had $16.1 million in sales that year. In 2015, the company reported $2.99 billion in revenues. That 187-fold growth is the result of 435 acquisitions over the company's history, including 230 in the U.S., according to SEC filings. That market consolidation has drawn other antitrust concerns. The U.S. Department of Justice and New York's attorney general sued in 2011 to block Stericycle's acquisition of an Ohio-based competitor, which they argued would have given Stericycle 90 percent of the New York metro market for infectious-waste treatment. The parties settled, with Stericycle agreeing to divest a transfer station in The Bronx. The suit filed by the West Hartford doctors in April refers to Stericycle's market power. "One of the consequences of Stericycle's rapid growth and dominance has been that its customers (and potential customers) have had little meaningful choice in selecting and negotiating arrangements with medical waste disposal companies and have been at the mercy of the terms of the agreements, no matter how oppressive and one-sided they may be," the complaint reads. There are 17 biomedical-waste haulers licensed in Connecticut, according to a state list dated Nov. 2015. It's not clear how much market share Stericycle owns. SUNEDISON INC: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 25 --------------------------------------------------------- OMEGA CAPITAL INVESTORS, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNEDISON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02268-PJH (N.D. Cal.), has been reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton. On May 13, 2016, Judge Hamilton ordered that a Case Management Conference will be held in this case on August 25, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. A copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/OgLN9s from Leagle.com. Omega Capital Investors, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Darren Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David William Hall -- dhall@rgrdlaw.com -- Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Jennifer N. Caringal -- jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- and James Ian Jaconette -- jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The firm also represents Omega Capital Partners, L.P., Omega Equity Investors, L.P., and Omega Overseas Partners, LTD. SunEdison, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com -- and Jaime Allyson Bartlett -- jbartlett@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. The firm also represents individual defendants Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio R. Alvarez, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James B. Williams, and Randy H. Zwirn. Terraform Global, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brett Hammon -- brett.hammon@wilmerhale.com -- Michael G. Bongiorno -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- and Timothy J. Perla -- timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The firm also represents Peter Blackmore. Alejandro Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Daniel H. Bookin -- dbookin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by Patrick David Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP. The firm also represents J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., and MCS Capital Markets, LLC. SUNRUN INC: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC on May 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun" or the "Company"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on August 5, 2015, have until July 5, 2016, to move as lead plaintiff. We advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by e-mail at info@goldberglawpc.com The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that: (1) Sunrun's actual historical operating costs were being understated by not identifying and disclosing the fixed grid costs being borne for it by public utilities where net metering programs were being employed; and (2) Sunrun had been charging well above wholesale rates for the electricity it was selling to its net metering customers. Goldberg Law PC -- http://www.Goldberglawpc.com-- represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. TICKETMASTER: Provides Details on Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Takiff, writing for Philly.com, reports that a newly landing email declaring you are due "benefits" in a class-action lawsuit -- Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster -- is legit, not some Nigerian get-rich scam. Still, the terms and nature of the win may make you wonder, "Why bother?" Class members will have to buy more tickets to get minimal restitution. Or wait at least a year and hope fellow class members don't follow through with claims. Standing for all consumers who bought tickets on Ticketmaster's website from Oct. 21, 1999, through Feb. 27, 2013, the California- based plaintiffs alleged that the description of Ticketmaster's fees was deceptive and misleading. While not admitting any wrongdoing, the ticketing subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment Inc. agreed to supply those 57 million eligible Ticketmaster customers with discount coupons applicable to fees on future orders, beginning on June 18, 2016, and redeemable up to the same date in 2020. Class members buying show tickets will get a $2.25 discount on the order processing fee and -- and if they previously used UPS for delivery -- will earn a $5 credit toward a new UPS shipment. Two shipping credits ($10) can be applied to a single transaction. The same email also discusses a Ticket Code "potentially redeemable" for two tickets to a concert event presented by Live Nation. Those ducats will only be available if/when class members don't use up at least $10.5 million per year (and $42.5 million total) of the $397 million available in discount codes. The first batch of ticket giveaways won't kick in (if at all) until June 18, 2017. Live Nation decides which concert and club shows might be included in the offer. Locally, the show-promoting giant puts on events at Festival Pier, TLA, the Tower, the Fillmore, BB&T Pavilion, and the Wells Fargo Center. The lawyers who brought this action are walking away with $14.9 million in fees, reported law360.com. Settlement objectors suggested that "those purporting to serve the class have sold it down the river." In another coupon settlement studied and written about by the Philadelphia-based law firm Duane Morris, only 20 percent of class members who received coupons actually used them. TORRAHOP INC: "Corrales" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Beatriz Corrales, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TORRAHOP, INC., a California Corporation, LANDMARK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, May 10, 2016), alleges: (1) missed meal and rest breaks in violation of Calif. Labor Code and California Code of Regulations; (2) unlawful recovery of wages previously paid in violation of California Labor Code; (3) Failure to Furnish an Accurate, Itemized Wage Statement upon Payment of Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; (4) Failure to Pay Compensation, Upon Termination of Employment in Violation of California Labor Code; (5) violations of California Business & Professions Code; and (6) violation of the Private Attorney General Act. Torrahop Inc. is a restaurant located in Torrance, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Young W. Ryu, Esq. Kelly Kim, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (888) 365-8686 Fax: (800) 576-1170 E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com TOSHIBA AMERICA: Award of $3,200 in Costs to Sklar Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JEFFERY L. ELLIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent; LORI J. SKLAR, Objector and Appellant, No. B257966 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's order awarding Lori Sklar costs of $3,200. Sklar had requested millions of dollars in attorney fees for her representation of the plaintiffs in a class action filed in 2005 against Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. and resolved by a settlement agreement. The appellate court also denied Sklar's motion to strike Toshiba's brief and portions of its appendix. A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 6, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/fCrBbZ from Leagle.com. Lori Sklar, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant. Umberg Zipser, Dean J. Zipser -- dzipser@umbergzipser.com -- Adina W. Stowell -- astowell@umbergzipser.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Benjamin G. Shatz -- bshatz@manatt.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. TRADE STREET: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Independence Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case, Tony Blank Family Trust et al. v. Trade Street Residential, Inc. et al., remains pending. On June 11, 2015, three purported stockholders filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on behalf of a putative class of Trade Street Residential, Inc. or TSRE stockholders and naming as defendants TSRE's Board of Directors, or the individual defendants, and TSRE. The case is captioned Tony Blank Family Trust et al. v. Trade Street Residential, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003081, or the Blank action. TSRE is listed as a defendant in the caption of plaintiffs' complaint, but no claim is asserted against TSRE. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Monarch Alternative Capital, LP, Senator Investment Group, LP, and BHR Capital LLC, or the shareholder defendants, as defendants. The amended complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the acquisition of TSRE by IRT, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving an acquisition that was financially unfair to TSRE's stockholders and by conducting a sale process in which the individual defendants had conflicts of interest. The amended complaint also alleges that the shareholder defendants aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by the TSRE merger. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, an order requiring that the individual defendants affiliated with the shareholder defendants disgorge all profits, compensation and other benefits obtained by them as a result of their conduct in connection with the TSRE merger, and an award of the plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney's fees. On September 25, 2015 the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiffs in the Blank action amended their complaint for a second time in response to certain arguments raised by defendants in their motions to dismiss. The second amended complaint adds a claim against the shareholder defendants for breach of fiduciary duty as controlling stockholders of TSRE. The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and the motions are currently pending. "IRT, as successor by the TSRE merger to TSRE, and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claim. We cannot assure you that the matter will be resolved favorably to us. We have included in our loss contingency an estimate of probable loss relating to our legal defense costs in connection with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss, in connection with this matter," the Company said. IRT is a Maryland corporation that owns apartment properties in geographic non-gateway markets. In September 2015, IRT announced the completion of its acquisition of Trade Street Residential, Inc. As a result of the merger, each outstanding share of Trade Street common stock was automatically converted into (a) $3.80 in cash and (b) 0.4108 shares of IRT common stock. In connection with the merger, IRT paid approximately $139.8 million in cash and issued approximately 15.1 million shares of common stock to former Trade Street stockholders. TRIAD GUARANTY: 30% of Settlement Fund Awarded to Lead Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JAMES L. PHILLIPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD GUARANTY INC., MARK K. TONNESEN, and KENNETH W.JONES, Defendants, No. 1:09CV71 (M.D.N.C.), Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. granted in full the motion filed by the lead counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. In January 2009, James L. Phillips filed suit against the Triad Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen, and Kenneth W. Jones alleging violations of securities laws. Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund was appointed as lead plaintiff. The parties eventually agreed to settle the suit and successfully sought court approval of a $1.6 million settlement for a defined class of plaintiffs. The lead counsel requested an award of 30% of the settlement amount and $105,516.13 in expenses, together with interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the settlement fund until paid. Judge Tilley granted the lead counsel's motion in full. The judge also ordered that the fees and expenses shall be allocated amongst other plaintiffs' counsel in a manner that the lead counsel in good faith believes reflects the contributions of such counsel to the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the litigation. A full-text copy of Judge Tilley's May 9, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/tXKgko from Leagle.com. JAMES L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, represented by LESLIE BRUCE MCDANIEL -- mcdas@mcdas.com -- MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, LLP. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRICAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, represented by BRIAN O'MARA -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- JACK REISE -- jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, PAUL J. GELLER -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, ELIZABETH A. SHONSON -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, JEFFREY D. LIGHT -- jeffl@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, LESLIE BRUCE MCDANIEL, MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, LLP, MICHAEL L. GREENWALD -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC & STEPHEN R. ASTLEY -- sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP. MARK K. TONNESEN, KENNETH W. JONES, Defendants, represented by RICHARD A. ROSEN -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, ROBYN TARNOFSKY -- rtarnofsky@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, WILLIAM K. DAVIS -- wdavis@belldavispitt.com -- BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A. & DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY -- aruley@belldavispitt.com -- BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A.. TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Tow Service Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a man has filed a proposed class action suit against Trickey's Service of Wood River, claiming the company charged him $100 extra for a police-initiated tow, plus a storage fee for a Sunday, on which the company was closed. Lucas Clark, of Wood River, was arrested on a driving-under-the- influence charge Saturday, March 19, but he could not reclaim the vehicle the following Sunday, March 20, because Trickey's was closed, the suit claims filed by Clark against Trickey's Service. The DUI case is pending. He also claims the tow service charged him $358, which is allegedly $100 more than would be charged had an owner voluntarily asked the vehicle to be towed. The total bill for storage was $120, in addition to the $358 towing charge. The suit claims a tow initiated by police requires no more work or expense by the defendant towing company. The suit claims that state law allows for towing of cars that police suspect may be used in a subsequent violation, such as driving under the influence, but the officer may not impound the vehicle for more than 12 hours. The suit also claims that the law provides that the fees for towing and redeeming impounded vehicles must be filed and kept on record with the local police. There is no such schedule of fees on file, the complaint alleges. Attorney Thomas Maag of Wood River is representing Clark and proposes to make the case a class action cause. "The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, as defendant has charged at least hundreds of class members the charges at issue," the suit alleges. Mr. Maag is also alleging there are questions of law applicable to all members of the proposed class. The proposed class is "all persons who, on or after May 6, 2011, had vehicles towed and stored by Trickey's Service, Inc., at the direction of someone other than the vehicle owner or operator, and were charged fees for towing in excess of the rate charged to tow non-police tows." A judge must certify the case as a class action before it can proceed. A spokesman for Trickey's had no immediate comment. The three-count suit is asking for at least $50,000 in each count. TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Ohio Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH CHAPMAN, JESSICA VENNEL, and JASON JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-01114 (N.D. Ohio, May 10, 2016), alleges that Tristar designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold online or through third-party retailers a high- powered pressure cooker called the "Power Pressure Cooker XL," that suffers from a serious and dangerous design defect. Tristar designs, manufacturers, markets, and sells the Pressure Cooker online and through third-party retailers throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Ste. 200 Cleveland, OH 44113-1254 Phone: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 533-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Fax: (312) 246-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4656 Fax: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net astock@bm.net TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Attorney Opposes Unsealing of Documents --------------------------------------------------------------- JW August, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that Donald Trump's attorney opposes unsealing some of the documents the Washington Post requested to be made public related to the Trump University class-action lawsuit, according to court documents filed on May 9. Rancho Palos Verdes Attorney Jill Martin has filed her opposition on behalf of Mr. Trump. According to the filing with the San Diego federal court where the November trial will be heard, Ms. Martin opposes unsealing some of the 52 documents "filed in support of and in opposition to" the class-action lawsuit. The documents consist of 1,200 pages. According to court documents, the Washington Post's attorneys exchanged emails and phone calls with Mr. Trump's team after the newspaper had filed its "motion to intervene" in the case. Mr. Trump's counsel agreed to unseal all the documents with the exception of four, consisting of 153 pages, the record detail. The four documents are described in the filing as Trump University's (Tus) "Playbooks." The attorneys argue the documents contain "confidential trade secret information." According to the court documents, although Trump University has stopped enrolling students, the information retains "its commercial value in the event TU starts enrolling students again, something it may do." Calls to Trump's attorney's were not immediately returned on May 9. Attorney's for the Washington Post told NBC 7 it did not have a comment on the recent filing. The Post's motion to intervene was filed related to the older of the two lawsuits moving through San Diego courts, Cohen vs. Trump. In the court documents, Ms. Martin argues the Post should not get to see what is in the documents because Judge Gallo has decided the documents contain "confidential trade secret information, which, if made public, would be harmful to TU's competitive standing." The documents detail that the Post's argument "completely misses the mark" when they argue the public interest in this case "somehow outweighs" Mr. Trump's. Daniel Petrocelli, another of Mr. Trump's attorney, spoke to NBC 7 on May 6 about deposition taken of Mr. Trump. He said it would "not be a good idea" to release it to the public. In the class action lawsuits, Trump University is accused of misleading students with unfulfilled promises of teaching them the secret to being successful in the real estate business. The allegations outlined in court documents include Trump University, which took in over $40 million, was fraudulent and deceptive. Students paid up to $35,000 for real estate seminars, according to court documents. Mr. Trump denies the allegations in the lawsuits. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Sidesteps Core Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- John Ribeiro, writing for PCWorld, reports that a proposed settlement between Uber and drivers in California and Massachusetts may have saved the company over US$600 million in payouts to drivers on work-related expenses. Uber agreed to pay the drivers an initial $84 million and a $16 million top-up depending on the company's valuation if it goes public. But the settlement in the class-action lawsuits sidesteps the core issue of whether the drivers should be classified as employees, which could have increased the amount Uber would have to pay the drivers. The ride-hailing company uses independent contractors rather than employees as drivers because it holds that the model gives the drivers a sense of ownership and also work flexibility. Figures disclosed by Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney for the drivers, in court on May 9 suggest that the policy also translates into large savings for the ride-hailing company. The settlement has to still get the preliminary approval of District Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The calculations were released on May 9 after Judge Chen refused to allow the redaction of certain portions of the settlement motion, such as information on the value of the claims. As employees, the drivers in California would be entitled to as much as $426 million in mileage expense reimbursement for trips made on the ride-hailing platform between 2009 and April of this year, according to the lawyer's estimate. Uber had put the amount much lower at $169 million. Massachusetts drivers would have got another $98 million. Phone expenses for the California drivers were pegged at $24.7 million and for those in Massachusetts at $4.6 million, according to the lawyer's estimate. Another $176 million in mileage expenses reimbursement would also fall due to drivers in California who were not part of the class in the lawsuit but were included in the settlement. The estimate provided by Ms. Liss-Riordan also includes $122 million in claims for alleged "unlawful taking of gratuities" by Uber. Uber has challenged the class certification in an appeals court, according to the Liss-Riordan, in defense of the settlement. An adverse decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would have diminished the class size from more than 240,000 drivers to approximately 8,000 drivers, or fewer depending on the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, she wrote in a filing. Uber also said it would appeal the matter further, if necessary, in the Supreme Court. The company had also informed her that at trial in the district court it would argue that it had satisfied Section 2802 of the California Labor Code, which deals with employee expenses, by structuring the fare to be an all-inclusive one that takes into account things like expenses, Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in the filing. Objections from drivers to the settlement have risen. "Some drivers out there are doing this full time working night and day . . .. So I urge you to reconsider and demand more from UBER and stand with the little fellas trying to making a living," according to a filing by Samy Jumaan to Judge Chen. Another driver, Edward Hanania appealed to the Judge for help against Uber who "is taking unfair advantage of us." Mr. Hanania added that unlike union workers who have protection and many industries that have laws to protect them, "you are all we have right now." Uber faces more class-action lawsuits in Florida and Illinois from drivers seeking reclassification as employees. Unlike the ones in Massachusetts and California, the new ones aim to be national class-action suits. VECTOR MARKETING: Supplemental Briefing Due May 20 in "Woods" ------------------------------------------------------------- After reviewing the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval, Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to provide a joint supplemental brief regarding certain issues in the case captioned WILLIAM WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00264-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than May 20, 2016. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 9, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/0Tk6vB from Leagle.com. William Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman. Dominic Seale, Wesley Varughese, Casey McCaleb, Plaintiffs, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman. Eric Essler, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C. &Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP. Samuel Barone-Crowell, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman. Lowell Harvard Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman. Vector Marketing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen Joyce Kubin -- kkubin@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Derek Francis Foran -- dforan@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, James R. Grasso -- jgrasso@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP, Joanna J. Chen -- jchen@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP, Kenneth A. Manning -- kmanning@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP, Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr. -- laubry@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & William J. Brennan -- wbrennan@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP. WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Leal" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned YALILE LEAL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Civil Action No. 15-5768 (E.D. La.), Judge Karen Wells Roby denied Wal- Mart Store's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of Judge Roby's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/B8SGUc from Leagle.com. Yalile Leal filed the lawsuit contending that Wal-Mart discriminated against her by overlooking her for promotions and not paying her the same pay as men. Leal worked at various Wal- Mart stores over the last fifteen years and worked in different departments and different positions. She worked as a cashier, customer service representative, lay-a-way clerk, overnight stocker, and in accounting. She contended that she became interested in a management position early on and became a support manager in the automotive department but later stepped down because of personal reasons. She contended that she later sought to reenter management but was told that no positions were available, although she observed men who were less qualified being promoted into management. She also complained that male employees were paid more than her, received higher raises, and better bonuses for the same or similar work. Leal therefore sought damages for past and present loss of income, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and attorney's fees and costs. Yalile Leal, Plaintiff, represented by J. Arthur Smith, III, Smith Law Firm, LLC, James Harvey Kaster -- kaster@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Jason Paul Hungerford -- jhungerford@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Justin M. DeLaune, Smith Law Firm, LLC, Kate Ann Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Lucas James Kaster -- lkaster@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Matthew Hale Morgan -- morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Paul Beiser -- sbeiser@mcglinchy.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Susanne U. Veters -- sveters@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Rules on Bid for Protective Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRIAN EGGEN and MARY EGGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, No. 14-cv-873-bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B. Crabb granted in part and denied, in part, WESTconsin Credit Union's motion to "bifurcate and stay plaintiff's claim for punitive damages." The certified class action was brought under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs, Brian Eggen and Mary Eggen, contended that the defendant WESTconsin Credit Union violated the Act by including driver's license numbers in unsealed and unredacted court documents. WESTconsin then filed what it called a "motion to bifurcate and stay plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages." Judge Crabb, however, stated that the motion is more accurately called a request for a protective order because WESTconsin was asking for a "stay [of] discovery relating to the issue of punitive damages until after motions for summary judgment are decided." In particular, WESTconsin asked the court to delay both the noticed deposition of Jerlyn Kinderman, the defendant's chief financial officer, and the deadline for responding to Request Nos. 22 through 31 of the plaintiffs' third request for production of documents. WESTconsin argued that a stay is appropriate because the requested discovery relates solely to the defendant's financial status, which is both confidential and irrelevant to the liability issues that it will be raising in its motion for summary judgment. Granting in part and denying, in part, WESTconsin's motion, Judge Crabb held that the defendant may have until May 16, 2016, to serve the plaintiffs Brian Eggen and Mary Eggen with any objections to Request Nos. 22 through 31 of the plaintiffs' third request for production of documents. The judge also stated that if the case is not resolved on summary judgment, WESTconsin may have seven days from the date of the summary judgment decision to comply with those requests in the absence of a sustained objection. Judge Crabb also added that the WESTconsin must make defendant Jerlyn Kinderman available to sit for a deposition within 14 days of the decision. "Although defendant does not have to provide information about its financial status until any summary judgment motions are resolved, defendant must raise any objections to plaintiff's requests for production of documents now. This will help to minimize any delays and allow any disputes about the scope of the requests to be resolved well before trial. Second, defendant should be prepared to turn over any responsive documents as soon as the court rules on the summary judgment motion. Third, defendant should be prepared to make its chief financial officer available for a deposition within two weeks of the summary judgment decision, unless the case is dismissed in full at that time," the Court said. A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's May 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/R3VnSQ from Leagle.com. Bradley Eggen, Mary Eggen, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Leighton Crandall, Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA. WESTconsin Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick Crooks -- mcrooks@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. & Quentin Fitch Shafer -- gshafer@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C.. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M's Bid to Exclude Bevis Testimony Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant 3M Company filed a Motion for Exclusion of Testimony of Darell Bevis and Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned The case is MARSHA K. DUGAS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darryl S. Dugas, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-1096-J-39JBT (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff Marsha K. Dugas filed her Responses in Opposition. 3M seeks to exclude the proffered expert testimony of Darell Bevis who opines that 3M's 8500 dust mask was defectively designed. 3M's position is grounded in a myriad of reasons. First, 3M contends that Mr. Bevis is unqualified to render opinions on alleged defects in respiratory protection equipment. Second, 3M argues that Mr. Bevis's opinion is not based on a reliable methodology or factual basis. Third, Mr. Bevis's conclusion is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and lastly, that Mr. Bevis is nothing more than a paid advocate. 3M also argues that Mr. Bevis's opinion that Mr. Dugas wore an 8500 dust mask while in the Navy lacks a factual basis, and that Mr. Bevis is not sufficiently qualified to offer that opinion. Judge Brian J. Davis of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted in part and denied in part 3M's Motion for Exclusion of Testimony of Darell Bevis. Mr. Bevis is prohibited from offering an opinion on the design of the 3M 8500 dust mask. Mr. Bevis may offer an opinion on whether the mask described by Mr. Dugas is an 8500 dust mask. Judge Davis also granted in part and denied in part 3M's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Davis granted 3M's Motion for Summary Judgment in respect to Plaintiff's claims of design defect and fraudulent concealment. Judge Davis denied 3M's Motion for Summary Judgment in respect to Plaintiff's failure to warn claim. A full-text copy of the Order dated March 29, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/DswRicfrom Leagle.com. Marsha K. Dugas, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan M. Pickert, Esq. -- Terrell Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, Esq. -- The Lanier Law Firm, H.W. Trey Jones, Esq. -- Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice, Mark A. Linder, Esq. -- Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice & W. Mark Lanier, Esq. -- The Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice. 3M Company, Defendant, is represented by Byron N. Miller, Esq. -- bmiller@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, pro hac vice, Dara D. Mann, Esq. -- dara.mann@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice, Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. -- blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke P.A., pro hac vice, Mary A. Wells, Esq. -- mwells@warllc.com -- Wells, Anderson & Race LLC, pro hac vice, Monica L. Irel, Esq. -- monica.irel@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Sada J. Baby, Esq. -- sada.baby@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eduardo J. Medina, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Knight S. Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL. Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Billie Jo Taylor, Esq. -- btaylor@boydjen.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Kristen M. Van der Linde, Esq. -- kvanderlinde@boydjen.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA & R. Scott Masterson, Esq. -- Scott.Masterson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, pro hac vice. Henkel Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Billie Jo Taylor, Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Kristen M. Van der Linde, Boyd & Jenerette, PA & R. Scott Masterson, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, pro hac vice. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, is represented by Evelyn Fletcher Davis, Esq. -- edavis@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins & Parnell, LLP & Todd Carlton Alley, Esq. -- talley@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph C. Wilson, IV, Esq. -- Pierce, Herns, Sloan & Wilson, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Compel Subpoena Compliance Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15M-05-009 (Del. Sup.), the Superior Court of Delaware granted in part and denied in part BorgWaner, Inc.'s Motion to Compel and granted in part and denied in part the Intervenors's Motion to Quash. Before the Court is a dispute regarding the production of testimonial and document evidence created as part of an arbitration proceeding under the 1985 Wellington Agreement. BorgWarner, Inc. has filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena that seeks evidence adduced during the arbitration, now in the hands of a trust, to support its position in an unrelated matter now pending in Illinois state court. Intervenors objected, arguing that such evidence is -- by agreement of the parties to the Wellington Agreement -- confidential, and now ask this Court to respect that agreement and quash BorgWarner's subpoena. A full-text copy of the Order dated March 15, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/r8W5zofrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Rules on Jurisdisction Issue ------------------------------------------------------------- This interlocutory appeal raises the singular issue of whether Delaware may exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation for claims having nothing to do with Delaware, as a price for the corporation agreeing simply to be able to do business in Delaware. The personal jurisdiction issue before us arises out of claims for wrongful exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs-appellants, Ralph and Sandra Cepec, are residents of Georgia. The seven defendants are companies associated with the manufacture, distribution, or installation of products containing asbestos. One of the defendants is Genuine Parts Company. Between approximately 1988 and 1991, Ralph worked for Genuine Parts in a warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida. In 2015, the Georgia plaintiffs sued the defendants in Delaware. Five of the seven defendants are Delaware corporations. Genuine Parts, however, is a Georgia corporation whose principal place of business is in Atlanta. That is, Genuine Parts is, like the Cepecs, at home in Georgia, not in Delaware. Nationally, Genuine Parts is known for operating NAPA auto-parts stores. It has never had a corporate office in Delaware, does not conduct its board or shareholder meetings in this state, and does not have any officers here. According to Genuine Parts, fewer than 1% of its employees work in Delaware, fewer than 1% of its auto-parts stores are here, and less than 1% of its revenue comes from our state. Genuine Parts is properly registered to do business in Delaware under Section 371 and has a designated agent for service of process in Wilmington in accordance with Section 376. In their complaint, the Cepecs allege that Genuine Parts acted negligently, willfully and wantonly, and with reckless indifference to Ralph's health and safety by wrongfully exposing Ralph to asbestos during the three years that he worked for the company in Florida, which, combined with other asbestos exposure, caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos- related ailments. They also pled that Genuine Parts "is a foreign corporation doing business in the state of Delaware whose registered agent for service of process is: The Corporation Trust Company." On June 30, 2015, Genuine Parts moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of general and specific personal jurisdiction. In response, the Cepecs did not argue that the Superior Court had specific jurisdiction over Genuine Parts under the long-arm statute, but argued that Genuine Parts had consented to Delaware's general jurisdiction by registering to do business in this state and appointing an in-state agent for service of process. In its August 31, 2015 order denying Genuine Parts' motion to dismiss, the Superior Court agreed with the Cepecs' position that Genuine Parts had consented to general jurisdiction in Delaware The Supreme Court of Delaware in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's clarification of the due-process limits on general jurisdiction in Goodyear and Daimler, read the state's registration statutes as providing a means for service of process and not as conferring general jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Superior Court's judgment that denied Genuine Parts' motion to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed. A full-text copy of the Order dated April 18, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/yqRtacfrom Leagle.com. The case is GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. RALPH ALLAN CEPEC and SANDRA FAYE CEPEC, Plaintiffs Below- Appellees, No. 528, 2015 (Del. Sup.). Paul A. Bradley, Esquire, pab@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Stephanie A. Fox, Esquire, Esq. -- saf@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; James C. Grant, Esquire (Argued), jim.grant@alston.com -- -- Alston & Bird LLP, Jonathan D. Parente, Esquire, Esq. -- jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esquire (Argued), jgoddess@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Lisa W. Shirley, Esquire -- lshirley@sgpblaw.com -- Charles E. Soechting, Jr., Esquire -- csoechting@sgpblaw.com -- Simon, Greenstone, Panatier & Bartlett, Dallas, Texas, for Appellees. Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Esquire -- kmccormick@ycst.com -- Nicholas J. Rohrer, Esquire -- nrohrer@ycst.com -- Julia B. Ripple, Esquire -- jripple@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Andrew J. Pincus, Esquire -- apincus@mayerbrown.com, Archis A. Parasharami, Esquire -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kathryn Comerford Todd, Esquire -- Warren Postman, Esquire, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C.,Amicus Curaie for The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. William W. Erhart, Esquire, Estate and Elder Law Services, Wilmington, Delaware; David W. deBruin, Esquire, The deBruin Firm LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Meghan Butters Houser, Esquire, Weiss & Saville, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Amicus Curaie for Delaware Trial Lawyers Association. John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Robert L. Willmore, Esquire,Thomas Kinney, Esquire, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C., Amicus Curiae for Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc. and American Insurance Association. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers OK'd to Amend 3rd-Party Suit ------------------------------------------------------- This dispute concerns insurance coverage for silica- and asbestos- related claims against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company. On September 6, 2012, the Court held that Defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company have a duty to defend such claims. Travelers moves to certify that order, along with two later orders concerning attorney's fees, as a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Separately, Travelers seeks leave to amend the Second Amended Third Party Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 21, to reinstate claims against Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, Ltd. In brief, Plaintiff Danaher Corporation purchased Chicago Pneumatic in 1986 and sold the company to Atlas Copco North America, Inc. in 1987. Danaher retained liability for products liability losses arising from products manufactured by Chicago Pneumatic prior to the sale, and obtained rights to receive the proceeds of insurance policies covering those losses. Chicago Pneumatic has been and continues to be a defendant in claims arising from the use of its products (the "Underlying Claims"). Danaher has incurred defense and indemnity costs as a result of the Underlying Claims. Travelers issued general liability insurance policies to Chicago Pneumatic and Danaher between 1936 and 1987. Danaher filed this action on January 7, 2010, seeking coverage of the Underlying Claims. Danaher then filed an Amended Complaint naming additional insurers as Defendants, and after two years of discovery, moved with Atlas Copco for summary judgment on whether Travelers had a duty to defend the Underlying Claims. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion to certify and granted the motion to amend. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/bLXwxHfrom Leagle.com. The case is DANAHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 10-CV-121 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y.). Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff, is represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, Esq. -- bosias@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, is represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Esq. -- rmauriello@grahamcurtin.com -- Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Esq. -- jschoenberg@grahamcurtin.com -- Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, is represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. North River Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Esq. -- gerard.morici@mendes.com -- Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Esq. -- robert.flannery@mendes.com -- Mendes & Mount, LLP. American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Esq. -- emargolis@moundcotton.com -- Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Unigard Mutual Insurance Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by Robert Dwyer Sullivan, Jr, Esq. -- Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Barbara Hopkinson Kelly, Esq. -- barbara.kelly@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, pro hac vice & Sheilagh Mary Depeter, Esq. -- sheilagh.depeter@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, is represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Esq. -- Epstein, Frankini & Grammatico. Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John Albert Mattoon, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser LLP & Andrew I Mandelbaum, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP. International Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony Gambardella, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Jay Kenigsberg, Rivkin Radler, L.L.P. & Michael Buckley, Rivkin Radler, LLP. Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass,Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John T. Wolak, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. AIU Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Century Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal & Park & James F Martin, Cohn Baughman & Martin. Liberty Mutual Fire Insuance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Eric J. Voigt, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass. Industria Insurance Company LTD., ThirdParty Defendant, represented byPaul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP. Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, LTD., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Karen M. Asner, White & Case LLP. North River Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. The Travelers Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Danaher Corporation, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English, LLP. North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented byRobert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. The Travelers Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Claimant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Danaher Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English, LLP. North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Claimant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Danaher Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English, LLP. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Industria Insurance Company LTD., Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant, represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Sawyer" to Maryland State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Joseph Morris, his surviving spouse, and his surviving children sued Defendant Foster Wheeler, LLC in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Morris died from mesothelioma, and the plaintiffs Janya Sawyer, et al. claim under various state law theories that the defendants were responsible for exposing him to the asbestos that caused his disease. Foster Wheeler removed Morris's action to this court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). Now pending is the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The plaintiffs claim that Morris was diagnosed with asbestos- related mesothelioma on December 1, 2014 and died as a result of this disease on March 1, 2015. Allegedly he was exposed to asbestos at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard where he worked as a "riveter heater and boiler maker in the 'boiler shop'" from 1948 through the 1970s. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 5, 2015, alleging theories of strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, fraud, conspiracy, market share liability, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. Foster Wheeler filed its notice of removal on January 11, 2016. Foster Wheeler claims it "manufactured marine boilers and auxiliary equipment for use on Navy ships pursuant to contracts and specifications executed by the Navy." The defendant's basis for removal is that Foster Wheeler was acting under an officer or agency of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1) in the manufacture and sale of boilers for the Navy. In their motion for remand, the plaintiffs argue that (1) Foster Wheeler's notice of removal was not timely and (2) Foster Wheeler fails to meet the requirements of the federal officer removal statute. As to the second point, the plaintiffs claim that the boilers were constructed in the shipyard's boiler shop under the direction of Foster Wheeler personnel and were only transported and installed on Navy ships after their completion. They do not dispute that the boilers were built pursuant to Navy specifications, and that the Navy controlled the warnings that accompanied the boilers when they were placed on Navy ships, but they contend the Navy did not restrict Foster Wheeler's ability to warn its employees in the shipyard's boiler shop about the presence of asbestos and their need to take proper safety precautions while constructing the boilers. Additionally, the plaintiffs say there is no evidence that warning individuals in the shipyard's boiler shop would have conflicted with the Navy's specifications, and none of the Navy guidelines cited by Foster Wheeler relate to warning workers in the boiler shop. Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 20, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/U1X10Hfrom Leagle.com. The case is Janya Sawyer, et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation, et al., Civil No. CCB-16-118 (D. Md.). Janya Sawyer, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Esq. -- WMinkin@lawpga.com -- Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Esq. -- JZavakos@lawpga.com -- Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. Garnette Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. Nancy Pike, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. Edward Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. Wayne Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. Joanne Traynor, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Laura A Cellucci, Esq. -- lcellucci@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Esq. -- srichman@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC & Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Esq. -- tmcdevitt@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., Defendant, is represented by Randolph L Burns, Esq. -- The Burns Law Firm PC. Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, is represented by John C Ruff, Esq. -- jruff@dehay.com -- DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by David W Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Esq. -- msb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Esq. -- tlg@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Universal Refractories Company, Defendant, is represented by Jason Sean Garber, Moore & Jackson LLC. Selby, Battersby & Company, Defendant, is represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and Stockbridge PC &Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge PC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Philip A Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff. J.H. France Refractories Co., Defendant, is represented by Geoffrey S Gavett, Gavett Datt and Barish PC & Laura D Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Defendant, is represented by Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr, Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, is represented by Cheri V. Koerner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Stephen Anthony Fennell, Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Jamie Michelle Hertz, Steptoe & Johnson LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Donald S Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, is represented by Philip A Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff. Cooper Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Ferro Engineering Division of On Marine Services Company, Defendant, is represented by Jennifer M Alexander, Brassel Alexander & Rice LLC & Jon W Brassel, Brassel Alexander & Rice. Foseco, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Lofton Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A Schofield, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Greene, Tweed & Co., Defendant, represented by Andrew William Gaudreau, Goldberg Segalla & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented byTheodore F Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Koppers Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Sean Garber, Moore & Jackson LLC. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Phelps Packing & Rubber Co., Defendant, represented by William Carlos Parler, Jr, Parler and Wobber LLP. Paramount Packing & Rubber, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey S Gavett, Gavett Datt and Barish PC & Laura D Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Helyna M Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP & Jason Richard Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker. Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas Hamilton, Marks ONeill OBrien Doherty and Kelly PC & Sebastian Goldstein, Marks, O Neill, O Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. MCIC, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr, Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. A.W. Chesterton Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and Stockbridge PC &Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Directs Review of Workers' Claims Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Union Carbide Corporation appeals from the Law Division's February 24, 2015 order denying reconsideration of its August 29, 2014 order denying UCC's motion for a protective order to restrict dissemination of certain medical records filed in workers' compensation cases. While the judge denied UCC's motion, she fashioned an alternative protective order requiring notification to the former employees. If they failed to object or respond, the former employees were deemed to have waived all privacy interests in their medical records. UCC sought reconsideration, which the court denied. UCC now appeals. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed because the judge's order does not provide the privacy protection required by N.J.S.A. 34:15-128.3 when disclosing workers' compensation medical information. A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 20, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/7Ljhznfrom Leagle.com. The case is GWENDOLYN SEYMOURE, individually and as Executrix and Executrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of James F. Seymoure, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY, ARVIN- MERITOR, INC., f/k/a Arvin Industries, Inc., as successor-in- interest to Rockwell International Automotive, ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD., BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, f/k/a Borg Warner, BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and Worldbestos Corporation, CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED, a/k/a Carlisle Braking Products, CENTRAL JERSEY SUPPLY CO., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, DANA COMPANIES, LLC, individually and as successor- in-interest to Victor Gaskets and Spicer Clutches, EASTERN EXPRESS, INC. (DISCOVERY ONLY), EASTERN FREIGHT WAYS, INC. (DISCOVERY ONLY), EATON CORPORATION, FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GOODRICH CORP., f/k/a B.F. Goodrich, THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., as successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, KAISER GYPSUM, KENTILE FLOORS, INC., LIPE AUTOMATION, f/k/a Lipe Rollway Corporation, MCCORD CORPORTAION, MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, MAREMONT CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Grizzly, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC., OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP., OVERNIGHT (DISCOVERY ONLY), PACCAR, INCORPORATED, individually and as successor to Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motor Company, PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC, RYDER SYSTEM, INC., T.I.M.E. D.C., INC. (DISCOVERY ONLY), UNIROYAL HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a Uniroyal, Inc., WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a American Cyanamid Corp., and RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Defendants, and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, No. A-3967-14T3. Craig A. Woods, Esq. -- cwoods@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (Caruso Smith Picini PC and Mr. Woods, attorneys; Richard D. Picini, of counsel and on the brief). Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com argued the cause for respondent (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C., and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; E. Elizabeth Sweetser, on the brief). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "McKenzie" Reversed -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dana Jeunea appeals in this product liability civil action resolved by summary judgment in favor of defendant Warren Pumps, LLC. Plaintiff's late husband, Paul McKenzie, served on two aircraft carriers during his naval career, working on and around various pumps that defendant had manufactured and sold to the United States Navy in the 1940s. In claims for strict product liability, negligence, and loss of consortium brought against defendant, plaintiff alleged that her husband had developed mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing replacement gaskets, insulation, and packing used with defendant's pumps. Plaintiff contended that it was foreseeable that those replacement items would be used with the pumps and that defendant should have warned of the dangers of asbestos exposure with the use of its pumps. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion in which it argued, among other things, that, even if plaintiff could prove that McKenzie had been exposed to asbestos through the replacement items, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that defendant had manufactured them or supplied them to the Navy and, therefore, that it was entitled to judgment in its favor on all claims as a matter of law. The trial court granted defendant's summary judgment motion on plaintiff's claims. On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant is subject to liability on all her claims because, at the time McKenzie worked around the pumps, they were in substantially the same condition as when defendant had sold them to the Navy and it was foreseeable that seamen would be exposed to asbestos through the replacement gaskets, packing, and insulation used with defendant's pumps, even though defendant had not manufactured or sold the replacements. The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed and remanded. On the issue presented as to plaintiff's strict product liability claim, a matter of first impression in Oregon, this court concluded that the statute that governs strict product liability in Oregon permits plaintiff's theory of liability; that plaintiff has adduced facts supporting the disputed causation element of her negligence claim; and that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's loss of consortium claim, which piggy-backed on the strict liability and negligence claims. A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 20, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/kygXpgfrom Leagle.com. The case is Paul George McKenzie and Dana Jeunea McKenzie, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A. W. CHESTERSON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, and WARREN PUMPS, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to Quimby Pump Company, Defendant- Respondent, 277 Or. App. 728 James S. Coon, Esq. -- jcoon@stc-law.com argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants. With him on the opening brief was Swanson Thomas & Coon. With him on the reply brief was Swanson, Thomas, Coon & Newton. Laurie Hepler, Esq. argued the cause for respondent. On the briefs were J. Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC., Allen Eraut, Esq. -- aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circuit Remands "Davidson" to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Tina Davidson, Kathryn D. Davidson and Kristen M. Davidson filed the instant survival and wrongful death action in Louisiana state court bringing similar claims to those in the first suit. The new suit did, however, add an allegation that Davidson was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation while working at Poulan Chainsaw in Shreveport from 1972 to 1978. All of the defendants in Davidson II were parties to Davidson I with the exception of the nondiverse Louisiana Defendants whose joinder is contested in this appeal: J. Graves Insulation Company, Inc. and Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. Graves and Taylor, according to Plaintiffs, are contractors that frequently installed asbestos insulation during the 1970s in northwest Louisiana. Plaintiffs sought remand. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs attached the affidavit of one of their attorneys, who stated, based on her experience that "to the extent Mr. Davidson was exposed to asbestos insulation at Poulan Chainsaw, this insulation was more likely than not supplied, installed, and repaired by Graves and Taylor." Georgia-Pacific and a second defendant, CertainTeed, opposed the motion to remand, urging the court to pierce the pleadings and to consider summary-judgment type evidence. Both sides supported their positions by quoting Davidson's testimony, from two depositions in the first lawsuit, about potential asbestos exposure while working at Poulan Chainsaw. The district court referred the remand motion to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to remand, concluding that the allegations in the petition were sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis and that there was not a basis for piercing the pleadings. The district court referred the remand motion to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to remand, concluding that the allegations in the petition were sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis and that there was not a basis for piercing the pleadings. Georgia-Pacific and CertainTeed filed appeals of the order. The district court disagreed with the magistrate's analysis. After piercing the pleadings, it concluded that Graves and Taylor had been improperly joined. Based on its improper joinder finding, the court dismissed Graves and Taylor with prejudice. After a period of discovery, the remaining Defendants filed a series of motions that resulted in the dismissal of all claims. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the denial of their motion to remand. This court address a procedural question that a number of other circuits have decided except this court: does a magistrate judge have authority to enter an order remanding a case to state court? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court for entry of an order remanding the case to state court. A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 19, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/6tDrNqfrom Leagle.com. The case is TINA DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of William Cleve Davidson; KATHRYN D. DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of William Cleve Davidson; KRISTEN M. DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of William Cleve Davidson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC, L.L.C.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; BEAZER EAST, INCORPORATED; J GRAVES INSULATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Graves-Aber Insulation Company, Incorporated; TAYLOR SEIDENBACH, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Taylor-Seidenbach, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-30925. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reverses Summary Judgment in "Finerty" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Order of the Appellate Division granting Ford USA's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and answered in the negative the certified question in the case styled MARY FINERTY & C., Respondents, v. ABEX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. (And Another Action.) , No. 1, 2016 NY Slip Op 03411. In 2010, plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against, among others, Ford Motor Company ("Ford USA"), Ford Motor Company, Ltd. ("Ford UK") and Henry Ford & Son, Ltd. ("Ford Ireland") alleging strict products liability under the theories of defective design and failure to warn. After discovery, Ford USA moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Ford USA did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the parts in question, pointing out that they were manufactured, produced, distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford UK. Ford USA further moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) arguing that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because it was devoid of any allegations supporting a claim that the court should "pierce the corporate veil" such that Ford USA could be held derivatively liable for the acts of Ford UK. Plaintiff countered that Ford USA was "actively involved" in the design, specification, production and sale of Ford products throughout the world, including the United Kingdom, such that it could be held liable for the role it "independently played" in placing the products into the stream of commerce and in failing to warn plaintiff. Supreme Court, while holding that there was no basis upon which to pierce the corporate veil, nonetheless determined that because plaintiff produced evidence showing that Ford USA "exercised significant control over Ford UK and Ford Ireland and had a direct role in placing the asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed into the stream of commerce," there was a question of fact concerning Ford USA's direct responsibility for plaintiff's injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme Court denying Ford USA's motion for summary. It agreed with Supreme Court that there was "no basis for piercing the corporate veil" but held that "the record demonstrated that Ford USA acted as the global guardian of the Ford brand, having a substantial role in the design, development, and use of the auto parts distributed by Ford UK, with the apparent goal of the complete standardization of all products worldwide that carried the signature Ford logo". As such, the Appellate Division held that there were factual issues concerning whether Ford USA could be found "directly liable as a result of its role in facilitating the distribution of the asbestos-containing auto parts on the ground that it was 'in the best position to exert pressure for the improved safety of products' or to warn end users of these auto parts of the hazards they presented". The Appellate Division granted Ford USA leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to CPLR 5713, and certified the question of whether that portion of the order that affirmed the order of Supreme Court was properly made. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 3, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/1Q6Lpq from Leagle.com. Anton Metlitsky, Esq. -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny for appellant. James M. Kramer, Esq. -- LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP for respondents. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus curiae. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bazor" -------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, denied Dana Companies, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the case In Re: Asbestos Litigation relating to KAY BAZOR, Administratrix of the Estate of ROBERT BAZOR, and Individually as Surviving Spouse Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., C.A. No. PC-10-3965. Before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Plaintiffs Robert T. and Kay Bazor's Opposition. These motions are made pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). At issue is whether Dana has forfeited its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction asserted in its Answer by participating in the litigation. The Court found that Dana's active conduct constitutes forfeiture of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 2, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/lNnAfw from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Loses Bids for Acquittal, New Trial ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant Sheldon Silver's Motions in the case UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER, Defendant, No. 15-CR-093 (VEC). Defendant Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, was convicted on two counts of honest services mail fraud, two counts of honest services wire fraud, two counts of extortion under color of official right, and one count of money laundering. Silver renews his motion pursuant to Rule 29 for a judgment of acquittal and moves pursuant to Rule 33 for a new trial. Silver orchestrated two criminal schemes that abused his position as the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and as an elected Assemblyman for unlawful personal gain. The two schemes follow the same basic model: Silver received bribes and kickbacks in the form of referral fees from third party law firms in exchange for official actions. Silver also engaged in money laundering pursuant to which he invested the proceeds of his unlawful schemes into private, exclusive investment vehicles. The first scheme is the "Mesothelioma Scheme." In the fall of 2002, Silver became "of counsel" to the personal injury law firm Weitz & Luxenberg. Silver received a fixed salary for lending his name to the firm (Silver was not expected to and did not perform any legal work for the firm's clients) and received a referral fee for any case he brought into the firm; his referral fee was a set percentage of the fees earned by the firm on any case Silver referred to the firm. Mesothelioma cases were particularly lucrative, generating on average hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees per case; the firm did not donate to mesothelioma medical research. The second scheme is the "Real Estate Scheme." Glenwood Management and the Witkoff Group are two major real estate developers in New York. Both companies depend heavily on the New York State government for favorable rent regulation, 421-a tax abatement legislation, and tax-exempt financing that must be approved by the Public Authorities Control Board ("PACB"). Both companies hired lobbyists and spent millions in political contributions in an effort to ensure that they achieved those goals. Silver exercised extraordinary control over legislation covering these issues and over PACB approvals. Silver essentially had veto power over all legislation because he could unilaterally prevent any legislation he opposed from coming to a vote, and he could unilaterally prevent the PACB from approving financing. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 3, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/upN9YG from Leagle.com. Sheldon Silver, Defendant, is represented by Joel Cohen, Esq. -- jcohen@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Joel Barry Rudin, Esq. -- Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, Justin Vaun Shur, Esq. -- jshur@mololamken.com -- Mololamken, LLP, Steven Francis Molo, Esq. -- smolo@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, LLP, Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, James M. McDonald, Us Doj, Justin Michael Ellis, Esq.-- jellis@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP, Robert Kelsey Kry, Esq. --rkry@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP & Tuongvy Le, Esq. -- tle@mololamken.com -- Mololamken LLP. Dr. Robert Taub, Interested Party, is represented by Lisa R. Zornberg, Esq. -- lzornberg@lswlaw.com -- Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP. The New York Times Company, Intervenor, is represented by David Edward McCraw, The New York Times Company. NBC Universal Media, LLC, Intervenor, is represented by Daniel M. Kummer, NBC Universal Media LLC. USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY,Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Reckless Conduct Claim Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Warren W. Eginton of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied defendant Aurora Pump Company's motion to dismiss the third count in the action styled JAMES SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al, Defendants. No. 3:15-cv-00941-WWE. Defendant Aurora Pump Company has moved to dismiss the Third Count of plaintiff's complaint, which alleges reckless conduct and seeks punitive damages based upon plaintiff's exposure to defendants' asbestos containing products. Aurora argues that plaintiff's Third Count should be dismissed for failure to assert specific allegations of recklessness. However, plaintiff alleges that defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which contained asbestos. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed the dangers of breathing asbestos from plaintiff and the public. Aurora responds that these allegations are "nothing more than allegations of negligence," and that plaintiff's complaint lacks allegations setting out "highly unreasonable conduct" giving rise to a valid recklessness claim. The Court found that plaintiff's Third Count adequately alleges recklessness as a matter of law. The plaintiff will, of course, be left to his proof of, inter alia, connecting his alleged exposure to asbestos with defendant's manufacture or distribution of contaminated products. A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated May 4, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/BbS6FS from Leagle.com. James Schmidt, Plaintiff, is represented by Amity L. Arscott, Esq. -- Embry & Neusner. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Brett Michael Szczesny, Esq. -- szczesny@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage & Dan E. LaBelle, Esq. -- labelle@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage. CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Robert F. Martin, Esq. -- rmartin@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Leigh Patch, Esq. -- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C. & John R Felice, Esq. -- jfelice@hermesnetburn.com -- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C.. Foster Wheeler L.L.C., Defendant, is represented by James R. Oswald, Esq. -- joswald@apslaw.com -- Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Esq. -- kperry@apslaw.com -- Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Esq. -- ksouza@apslaw.com -- Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Crystal L Cooke, Esq. -- cfraser@danaherlagnese.com -- Danaher Lagnese, PC,Jason Kirk Henderson, Esq. -- jhenderson@danaherlagnese.com -- Danaher Lagnese, PC & Patrick J. Glinka,Esq. -- pglinka@danaherlagnese.com -- Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C.. Ingersoll-Rand Co, Consol Defendant, is represented by Erminia Amy LaBrecque, Esq. -- Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman and Guekguezian. 3M Company, Consol Defendant, is represented by John C. Fitzgerald, Jr., Cranmore, Fitzgerald & Meaney, Joseph V. Meaney, Jr., Cranmore, Fitzgerald & Meaney & Kyle R. Pavlick, Cranmore, Fitzgerald & Meaney. Armstrong International Inc., Consol Defendant, is represented by Adam C Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Matthew Jason Zamaloff, Cetrulo LLP. Aurora Pump, Consol Defendant, represented by Cullen W. Guilmartin, Gordon & Rees LLP, Delaney M. Busch, Gordon & Rees LLP & John J. Robinson, Gordon & Rees LLP. Bayer Cropscience Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Christopher E. H. Sanetti, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Monica Rose Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Christy E. Centeno, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Borgwarner Morse, TEC, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.. BW/IP, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP. Flowserve US Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP. Ford Motor Co., Consol Defendant, represented by Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP. Georgia Pacific LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Brian Collins Spring, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Kevin W. Hadfield, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Honeywell Intl Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregg P. Bailey, Cetrulo LLP, pro hac vice. Honeywell Intl Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Matthew Jason Zamaloff, Cetrulo LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.. Lincoln Electric Co., Consol Defendant, represented by Brian T. Murnane, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau, LLP, pro hac vice, Christine S. Synodi, Synodi & Videll, LLC, Philip A. Kulinski, Evert, Weathersby, Houff, pro hac vice &Vincent A. Errante, Darger & Errante LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance, Consol Defendant, represented by Melicent B. Thompson, Litchfield Cavo LLP. Nash Engineering Co, Consol Defendant, represented by Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Kelly E. Petter, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Niantic Seal Rip Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Reed Adam Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Catherine A. Mohan, McCarter & English, LLP. Sepco, Consol Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.. Tenneco, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Drury, Shipman & Goodwin. Viking Pumps, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Alexandra Nassopoulos Vilella, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Warren Pumps LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexandra Nassopoulos Vilella, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Kelly E. Petter, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Safeguard Scientifics Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Edward N. Storck, III, Morrison, Mahoney LLP. The Scotts Company LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Erin C O'Leary, McCarter & English LLP & Cara Tonucci Keefe, McCarter & English LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Inked in Non-Occuptational Exposure Case -------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the remaining parties involved in a non-occupational asbestos exposure suit brought against Weyerhaeuser Co. have reached a settlement agreement, according to the court, shortly before trial was scheduled to start in the matter. In a May 5 docket entry, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin indicated that a settlement had been reached in the case and, given that the remaining claim in the action had been settled, the case was thereby dismissed. The underlying claims were filed by plaintiff Milton Boyer, who was employed at the Marshfield plant from 1973 to 1983. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take Home Death Nets $7-Mil. Verdict ----------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a Louisiana trial judge awarded $7 million to the surviving family members of a woman who died of cancer after years of laundering her husband's asbestos-tainted clothes. Myra Williams died from mesothelioma, a disease caused exclusively by exposure to asbestos after years of contact with the material at home through handling her husband's work clothes. Myra's husband, Jimmy Williams, worked around asbestos at his job for Placid Oil Co., court documents say. As part of his job at Placid Oil, according to the documents, Jimmy Williams was required to crawl over equipment insulated with asbestos. "This caused asbestos dust and fibers to accumulate on his clothing, which he wore home on a daily basis to be laundered by Myra Williams," Judge Lala Sylvester's ruling said. Ingersoll-Rand manufactured asbestos-laden compressors and supplied them to Placid Oil. Jimmy William's job at Placid Oil involved changing gaskets and removing insulation. Workers during trial testified that the removal of insulation and vibration from the compressors would create asbestos dust in the compressor room, which visible to the naked eye. By the 1950s Ingersoll Rand was aware of the dangers of asbestos, Williams's family claimed, but the company continued to use asbestos insulation in the equipment it manufactured and did not provide warnings to the workers using the equipment. Workers had no idea their health was at risk, and they would not have known of the dangers of taking asbestos home on their clothing. The take-home asbestos exposure case ended April 29, 2016. Myra Williams had four children, each of whom was awarded $750,000 for Myra's death. The total damages won total $7 million. "Myra's children were extremely close to her, and it was an honor to represent them," Lance Unglesby of the Unglesby Law Firm said in a statement posted on its website. "Take-home asbestos exposure will continue to harm families across America due to the negligence of companies that failed to properly protects workers," Jeff Gaughan, a partner with Baggett McCall Law Firm, said in an online statement. "We are honored to have represented the Williams family and proud to bring them justice for their unimaginable grieving, pain and suffering." Baggett McCall and Unglesby Law Firm collectively are responsible for the two highest survival action mesothelioma verdicts in the state. Dorothy White v. Entergy resulted in a $3.8 million survival action mesothelioma verdict, and Sadie Mae Terrance v. Exxon resulted in a $5 million survival action mesothelioma verdict. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info After Mans Dies from Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------ The Press reported that a retired lift engineer's son is working with solicitors to help discover how his father was exposed to asbestos. Brian Addison, 79, from York, died on Saturday, just five months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a terminal cancer. His son, Carl, 57, is appealing for information from his father's former colleagues to discover more about how Mr Addison came into contact with asbestos. The 79-year-old left the RAF in 1966 and became a lift engineer's assistant, working initially for Fairfield Promotions Limited, also known as Fairfield Lift & Escalator Company, which had offices in Bradford and Cleveland, and later at Ebor Lift Company, based in York. It is during his time in this role at the companies, that Mr Addison said he came into contact with asbestos that caused him to develop mesothelioma. His family has instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office to investigate whether or not more could have been done by his former employers to protect him from the dangers posed by asbestos. Carl said: "My family have been left absolutely devastated by my dad's death. It is still extremely fresh for us but we want to get to the bottom of what caused his illness and where exactly he was exposed to asbestos. "Dad was always fit and healthy and I know that his diagnosis really affected him and he was worried what the future would hold for him and the rest of the family and in particular my mother. "I can only hope people who worked with him will recognise him and come forward with the information we need to ensure those responsible for failing to prevent his asbestos exposure are held to account." During his career working in the lift maintenance and repair industry, Mr Addison worked during the 1970s and the early 1980s at various power stations in Yorkshire including Ferrybridge B and C, Skelton Grange and Thorpe Marsh in Doncaster and Keadby Power station in Scunthorpe. He worked in dusty conditions and saw employees of the power stations stripping lagging from pipework while he was undertaking his lift duties. Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: "Sadly, we know through our work, that many employers did not do enough to manage the risk associated with asbestos, even as late as in the 1980s, when extensive legislation had already been passed. "We are now appealing to any of Brian's former colleagues who worked with him at Fairfield Promotions Limited/Fairfield Lift & Escalator Company and Ebor Lift Company to contact us in order to discuss the working conditions." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 3 Cumberland Schools ------------------------------------------------------- Cierra Putman, writing for NBC 10 News, reported that school is almost done in Cumberland, but there's a plan for a busy summer after asbestos was found in several schools. Teachers were told they'll need to pack up so work can begin the last day of school. "At no time were any children or any adults in danger in any way," Cumberland School Superintendent Robert Mitchell said. This summer, the school district will remove all flooring at three schools, including North Cumberland Middle, McCourt Middle, as well as Ashton Elementary. In 1994, NBC 10 News reported that several schools were closed so asbestos floor tiles could be removed. They were used in school construction for decades before asbestos was identified as a health risk in the 1980s. If disturbed, asbestos particles can cause major health problems - - and even cancer -- if inhaled. The school district decided to remove the tiles because it's making other updates and might disturb the asbestos. "When you take something out as part of the process for renovation work, we are required by the state to test for asbestos," Mitchell said. The superintendent said teachers and school officials will start clearing out the buildings on the last day of school, which is June 17. "The targeted end date for all of the work to be done is August 26," Mitchell said. "It is a tight schedule." Teachers will have to pack up everything. Even lockers have to go. If the schedule goes off course, students might start school late. "Do I think that's going to happen? No," Mitchell said. The superintendent said the town borrowed $5 million to complete the summer project. The school committee and town will have 10 years to pay it back. "We're really pleased that this really important work is going to get done this summer," he said. There are eight schools in the Cumberland School District. Some schools have gone through the abatement process, while others still have to have it done when money is available. The EPA or US Environmental Protection Agency requires schools to test asbestos-containing materials every three years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Timebomb Linked to Death of Worker ------------------------------------------------------------ Ed Mezzetti, writing for The Press, reported that York's asbestos timebomb has been linked to the death of another former Carriageworks employee. At an inquest, York's senior coroner Jonathan Leach ruled that exposure to asbestos dust was a "significant factor" in the death of Don Welby. Mr Welby, of Canham Grove, York, died on December 20 last year, aged 84, after suffering from lung cancer. The inquest at New Earswick Folk Hall heard that he had been a joiner at York Carriageworks for 20 years from 1967 to 1987. Dr Craig Bratten, a consultant pathologist at York Hospital, performed an autopsy on Mr Welby on December 22. He found the cause of the 84-year-old's death was carcinoma (a type of cancer) due to asbestos exposure and smoking. Mr Leach said: "I have seen a lot of these cases. My experience is that it can lie dormant for a long, long time and then raise its ugly head and within a few months, they are gone. "It's clear that Don, during his working life, was exposed to asbestos. That was a significant factor in his death. "My conclusion is that his death was due to industrial disease." Before his death, Mr Welby instructed solicitors to pursue a claim on his behalf. In a letter, which was read out by Mr Leach, he said: "My wife recalls having to empty out the pockets of my overalls of dust and debris before they were washed." Mr Welby's cancer was confirmed after a biopsy in February 2015. A bone scan in August revealed radiotherapy had not been successful and he received palliative care until his death in December. Many scores of former York Carriageworks employees have died from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust at the Holgate Road factory over several decades before its closure in the 1990s. Last year, Howard Bonnett, a specialist lawyer dealing with asbestos claims at Corries solicitors, said the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 14 people in York had died of the condition in 2014. He warned that the true number of asbestos-related fatalities might be much higher, claiming: "A large number of deaths due to asbestos disease such as lung cancer are not recorded because the coroners and medical staff are not aware of the diseases or always make a connection between the two." Mr Bonnett added: "Unfortunately the date at which the number of deaths is expected to peak is still a little time away." ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Shuts Down Over Asbestos Concerns -------------------------------------------------------------- KLTV.com reported that the heavy flooding in Palestine has now forced a school building to close for the rest of the year. Westwood ISD officials in Palestine decided to close the main building of the junior high school. "There is too much of a risk with that tile curling up and starting to break that we aren't going to use those class rooms," said Superintendent Dr. Ed Lyman. Lyman says on April 30, they saw about eight inches of rain in just over two hours, causing at least $100,000 in flood damage to the school property. "The drainage culverts apparently aren't large enough to handle that much rain, and it was backed up into the main building," Lyman said. After the flood, crews cleaned the campus but old flooring proved to be a problem in 10 classrooms. "The tiles in those classrooms are still the old asbestos tiles. They started after about two or three days of drying they started popping up off the concrete and started curling," Lyman said. The junior high campus was built in the 1960's and is the oldest campus in the district. Officials say some classrooms have more modern tiling and some still have the original floors. "People would step on those things, they would break, and with type of breakage pulverizing the tiles, there is a risk of releasing asbestos into the air," Lyman said. To avoid that risk, the district rearranged schedules and utilized two other buildings on the campus and the high school. "We do have other space. The high school has been very instrumental and very helpful in making sure we accommodate out students," said Special Programs Coordinator Tiffany Carwell. Once school is out for the summer, the district will repair the flooring and expand the culverts. Flooding damage was also reported at Westwood High School. The entire gym floor will have to be replaced. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Answers for Man's Death ----------------------------------------------------- South Wales Argus reported that the family of an Abercarn man is appealing for his former work colleagues to help establish whether his asbestos-related death in 2013 was linked to conditions in which he carried out his job. David Gwilliam, often known by his middle name of Howard, was suffering from asbestosis when he died in March 2013, shortly before his 86th birthday. He worked at the former Alcan plant in Rogerstone for nearly 50 years, from 1941-1990, then for several weeks in summer 1991. Asbestosis is a chronic lung condition caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, and his widow Deborah and son Mike want to trace his former colleagues in the hope they can provide more information about his working conditions. In particular they hope to establish whether, and if so how, he was exposed to asbestos. David Gwilliam began working at Alcan as a post boy in 1941, beginning a mechanical apprenticeship in September 1943 and completing it in July 1950 after it was interrupted for his National Service (October 1945-May 1948), which included a spell in Germany. A tool maker in the Alcan tool room, he moved to the foil mill after the former closed in the early 1980s, initially retiring in October 1990. He briefly returned to work in July 1991, finally retiring several weeks later. "Much of dad's life revolved around his family, and he spent much of his spare time at home. However, he also loved his work, and we had other family members who worked at Alcan," said Mike Gwilliam. "In the 1950s, his elder brother and an uncle also worked at Alcan. His nephew Geoffrey worked there until the late 1970s before moving to Australia. I worked there in the warehouse for a brief period. "We know that over the many years at Alcan he would have had friends there, and we can only hope a former colleague will remember working with him and can tell us more about his role. "Knowing that dad was suffering from asbestosis at the time of his death has been very hard, and we are seeking witnesses so we can establish what might have contributed to that. "There are no doubt other families in the area who have gone through a similar experience to us, so talking about this publicly is important." Richard Green, specialist solicitor in asbestos-related illnesses at law firm Hugh James, said it is "vital" to be able to speak to former colleagues of Mr Gwilliam, as his wife and son had only limited knowledge of his employment history. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Strike Expert Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court has granted a motion to strike expert disclosures from 12 experts set to testify in an asbestos case, saying that the disclosures were "wholly and obviously deficient" and that the defendants were prejudiced by the incomplete reports. In the May 10 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled that, as a discovery violation sanction, the plaintiffs will not be permitted to use 12 expert witnesses, including Arnold Brody, Ph.D., Dr. Barry Castleman, and Arthur Frank, M.D. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges Against Hotel -------------------------------------------------------- The Seattle Medium reported that Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed criminal charges on in Spokane Superior Court against three people and one company for multiple violations of clean air laws involving improper asbestos removal and disposal. Ferguson alleges the defendants' actions endangered the health of their neighbors and workers. According to the Attorney General's Office (AGO), Kent-based 2013 Investors, LLC, its owner, Dayabir Bath, his nephew, Gee Grewal, and employee John Hickson are accused of multiple violations of the Washington Clean Air Act and reckless endangerment. Grewal is also accused of making false statements to a public servant. In 2013 and 2014, the state alleges, 2013 Investors performed extensive renovation work on an 89-room hotel in Spokane. Although the building, the former Spokane House Hotel, contained asbestos, the owners didn't obtain the proper asbestos surveys or city permits to do the work as required by law, according to the allegations. "My office won't tolerate skirting our environmental laws and endangering public safety to make a quick buck," Ferguson said. "Asbestos-removal regulations are strict for a reason: The alleged actions of these individuals put at risk not only workers, inspectors and innocent neighbors, but also endangered our environment." One City of Spokane permit application filed by the defendants asserted they planned only to replace, texture and paint drywall, though more extensive renovation was already underway. Investigators from the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency only became aware of the full extent of the renovation when one of them happened to drive by and noticed the extensive work in June of 2013. Investigators reported piles of debris likely to contain asbestos sitting out in the open air, that they believe endangered workers and neighbors. In 2014, Clean Air Agency investigators claim that they spotted another debris pile, containing visible asbestos. The asbestos allegedly sat in the open air for several months, experiencing winds of up to 43 mph in that timeframe. The AGO alleges that during such winds, delicate and breakable asbestos fibers can freely blow around the neighborhood, endangering the health of those nearby. 2013 Investors, Bath, Grewal and Hickson are each charged with: * Three counts of violating the Washington Clean Air Act, and * One count of reckless endangerment Additionally, Grewal is charged with: * One count of making false statements to a public servant Each count, if substantiated in a court of law, carries a maximum of 364 days in jail and/or $5,000 in fines. Ferguson praised the efforts of the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, for their work on the case. "Their efforts directly led to these charges," Ferguson said. ********* 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 * * *