/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160531.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 108 Headlines 3M COMPANY: "Bhatia" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana ADECCO USA: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Silva" Suit Claims AIR & LIQUID: Faces "August" Suit in New Jersey Court AIRBNB: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action in Washington D.C. AIR INDIA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5 Million AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Frozen Food Items Due to Listeria ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Moot Class Action Claims AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Choose Class ALPHABET INC: Faces Derivative Suit Over Antitrust Charges ARIZONA: Prisons Ordered to Improve Inmate Health Care Quality BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Adams" Suit Over FCRA Violation BELGIUM: Inmates to File Class Action Over Poor Living Conditions BESTAR INC: Recalls Juvenile Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard BLUE BUFFALO: Judge Approves $32MM Class Action Settlement CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Awaits Certification of Class Action CANADA: Settles B.C. MSP Class Action for $7.5 Million CAPITAL BUILDING: Settles Janitors' Wage Theft Class Action CARAMEL FACTORY: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Milk & Soy CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking "Enea" Class Allegations Upheld CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Class Action Goes to Arbitration CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Class Action Appeal Pending CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Namdar" Action Says CJ DANNEMILLER: Recalls Roasted Sunflower Kernels Due to Listeria COMMUNITY COALITION: "Brewer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay COX COMMUNICATIONS: Timely Notice of Removal Debars Reinstatement CYTRX CORPORATION: $4-Mil. Class Settlement Has Final Approval DAKOTA STYLE: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Favors Disabled Children DYNAMIC PET: Sued Over "Needlike Shards" in Ham Bone for Dogs E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Class Action Appeal to Continue E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Rayner" Class Action EEG INC: Judge Ruled on the Parties' Motions in "Mitchell" Suit ELWYN: "Byrd" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ELWYN: "Tate" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ES FOODS: Recalls Meal Break Products Due to Sunflower Seeds FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Bid for Attorneys' Fees in "Bohannon" FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Private Scanning Message Suit FAST RIG SUPPORT: Stipulated Judgment in "Mazzarella" Affirmed FIFTH THIRD: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set FINISH LINE: Settlement in "Arreola" Case Has Final Approval FIRST MERCURY: Appeals Panel Expresses Concern on Junk TCPA Suits FIRST NATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Suit Claims FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morris" Suit Claims FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria FITBIT: Study Shows Gadget Heart Rate Readings Inaccurate FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in "Daniel" Suit FRONTIER COMMS: Customers Fight Bid to Arbitrate False Ad Claims FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Hojicha Tea Due to Salmonella GENERAL MILLS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerios Labeling Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Unveils Fuel Economy Claims Compensation Plan GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Backlash Over Mileage Misstatements GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Asian Salad Kits Due to Allergens GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Pending GRETNA, LA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Enforcement Ordinance HICKORY HARVEST: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: In Class Action Settlement Talks HMSHOST: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria HY-VEE: Recalls Fried Rice Products Due to Listeria HY-VEE INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria ILLINOIS: Mental Health Overhaul Begins Following Settlement INDIANA: AHA Taps Barnes & Thornburg to Defend Class Action INTERLINE BRANDS: Judge Trims "Ajose" Class Suit JAKARTA: Governor Won't Hinder Luar Batang Class Action JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer "Ezersky" Denied JORGE GARCIA: Homeowners File Class Action Over Property Damage JP MORGAN: "Friedman" Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed KROGER CO: Recalls Organic Mixed Vegetables Due to Listeria LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Settlement Has Final Okay LYFT INC: Faces "Zamora" Class Suit in N. District California MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Frozen Yellow Cut Corn Due to Listeria MDL 2159: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Moved to July 8 MDL 2551: Court Says NHL's Bid to Dismiss Injury Suit "Premature" MDL 2583: Judge Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit MDL 2641: "Fraser-Johnson" Suit Remanded to Delaware MDL 2641: "Wolfe" Suit Remanded to Mahoning County MEDICAL RECORDS: Court Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver MONTERO FARMS: Recalls Orange Habanero Peppers Due to Salmonella NAPLES, FL: Faces Age, Sex Discrimination Class Action NAT'L BROADCASTING: Biggest Loser Contestants Mull Class Action NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Maine Woman Files Debt Collection Class Action NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Ex-Players Remove Name from Concussion Suit NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Vacates Findings in "Whitfield" NEVADA: Suit Filed Over Automobile Medical Payments NEWLINK GENETICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against "Castillo" Action ONEOK INC: Settlement Reached in Gas Index Pricing Litigation PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Oriental Salad Products Due to Listeria PERRIGO CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.J. PG&E CORP: 32 Complaints Filed in Connection With Butte Fire PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Metal Halide Lamps Due to Burn Hazard PONTIAC, IL: Court Severs RLUIPA Claim From "Coleman" Suit PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Pollution PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cranberry Nut and Seed Mix Due to Listeria QUAKER OATS: Recalls Quinoa Granola Bars Due to Sunflower Kernels RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims RICOH INDIA: InGovern Says Class Action Suit Should Be Taken RIXSON OF MONROE: Recalls Exterior Gate Closers ROCKWELL INT'L: Settles Rocky Flats Class Action for $375MM ROYAL COACHMAN: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK SEMPRA ENERGY: 138 Cases Filed Related to Gas Leak SENECA COAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice SHAPIRO BROWN & ALT: "Burke" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay SOS TELECOM: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil SPRINGFIELD, MA: Public Schools Sued Over ADA Violations SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plan STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Updates Green Bean Packages Recall STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Pagoaga" Suit in California Court SUNOPTA INC: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall SYNAPSE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscription TD BANK: Pulls Plug on Penny Arcade Coin-Counting Machines TD BANK: "Spector" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey TOSHIBA CORP: Court Dismisses "Stoyas" Securities Action TRANSNET: Court Tosses Bulk of Exceptions to Pensioners' Claims TREEHOUSE FOODS: Expands Sunflower Kernel Product Recall UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lyft Drivers File Class Action in California UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Drivers' Wage Class Suit in Arizona ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Recalls Amino Gold Supplements Due to Milk UNITED FURNITURE: Previously Reached Agreement Not Honored UNITED KINGDOM: Hearing Scheduled for Mau Mau Insurgency Suit UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Walnuts and Walnut-Containing Products VENDING NUT: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products Due to Listeria VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Jenkins" WATER HEATING: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk WCD KITCHEN: Recalls Kale & Edamame Salad Due to Salmonella WELL CARE: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Compounded Products WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Char" Suit Remanded to Cal. Super. WILLMOTT FORESTS: Court Refuses to Approve Settlements WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: "Bennti" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay * Alabama Legislation Blunts Impact of Lisk ADTPA Ruling * Australia's Class Action Landscape Evolving, Fed. Cases Steady * Class Action Lawyers See Spike in Wage-and-Hour Litigation * Frederick County Financial Advisers React to New Fiduciary Rule * Illinois Biometric Law Sparks Wave of Privacy Class Actions * Labor Protections Need for Independent Contractors, Warren Says * New CFPB Rules No Major Impact on Local Community Banks ********* 3M COMPANY: "Bhatia" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns ------------------------------------------------------ Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., Jeffrey Chen, D.D.S., Bruce Sherrill, D.D.S., Brookhaven Dental Associates, P.C., Johns Creek Dental Associates, P.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv- 01304 (D. Minn., May 16, 2016) seeks temporary and permanent enjoinment of 3M from selling Lava Ultimate products for use in crowns; applicable statutory and civil penalties; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney fees and costs and such other or further relief resulting from breach of express/implied warranty and for violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs are dental practitioners who purchased defective dental crowns from 3M. Lava Ultimate failed to affix to the crown as it flexes when under pressure through recommended bonding or cementation procedures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. Will Thompson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 500 North Akard, Suite 2810 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com wthompson@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq CHALMERS PAK, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 96 Alpharetta, GA 30097 Tel: (678) 735-5903 Fax: (678) 735-5905 Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - David S. Corwin, Esq. Bradley A. Winters, Esq. Vicki L. Little, Esq. SHER CORWIN WINTERS LLC 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100 St. Louis, Mo. 63105 Tel: (314) 721-5200 Fax: (314) 721-5201 E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com bwinters@scwstl.com vlittle@scwstl.com ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Record reports that a Lafayette man alleges a debt collector reported a disputed debt on his credit report. Earl R. Roberts filed a class-action complaint on April 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services LLC and Alex Briscoe, also known as Marcus Briscoe, alleging that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges he informed the defendants on June 10, 2015, that he did not owe the purported debt. The suit states that on June 12, 2015, he began receiving numerous emails from the defendants in an attempt to collect and requested the defendants to stop contacting him. In July 2015, the suit states that the defendants credit reported the alleged debt but did not report that the debt is disputed by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff alleges he incurred a higher interest rate when he purchased a car. The plaintiff holds Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services LLC and Alex Briscoe responsible because the defendants allegedly never sent notice of his right to dispute and/or request validation, called him on his cellphone even after his counsel revoked any consent that he may have previously provided them and used an automated voice mail message. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensation for actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees, all costs and expenses and for any and all other relief the court may deem appropriate. He is represented by Keren E. Gesund of Gesund & Pailet LLC in Metairie. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Case number 6:16-cv-00555 ADECCO USA: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Silva" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Adecco USA, Inc., Empire Container Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC620148 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful practice of terminating employees without prior notice. Adecco USA, Inc. operates a staffing and recruiting company located at 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd Building 200 Jacksonville, Florida. Empire Container Corporation manufactures premier corrugated packaging, point of purchase displays, custom corrugated boxes and folding cartons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 AIR & LIQUID: Faces "August" Suit in New Jersey Court ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, As Successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and as Successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan; Fmc Corporation, On Behalf of Its Former Chicago Pump & Northern Pump Businesses; Foster Wheeler, L.L.C. The case is captioned Martin August and Pauline August, H/W v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, As Successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and as Successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan; FMC Corporation, On Behalf of Its Former Chicago Pump & Northern Pump Businesses; Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., Case No. L-002784-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016). Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is an industrial equipment supplier headquartered at 1680 S Livernois Rd, Rochester Hills, MI 48307. CBS Corporation is a mass media corporation focused on commercial broadcasting, publishing, and television production, with most of its operations in the United States. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures and markets home appliances in North America. Fmc Corporation chemical manufacturing company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Alexander Eiden, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 755-1115 AIRBNB: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action in Washington D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gillian Edevane, writing for Mashable, reports that an African- American man who claims he was subjected to race-based discrimination while using Airbnb slapped the company with a proposed class action in a Washington D.C. federal court on May 17, alleging that the company has routinely violated the Fair Housing Act and the civil rights of people of color. The complaint alleges that 25-year-old Gregory Seldon was denied accommodation in Philadelphia in March 2015 due to his race. Court documents state that he was looking for housing while planning a weekend getaway with friends, and turned to Airbnb as a cost-friendly option. At the time, his Airbnb profile was linked to his Facebook, so it displayed his profile picture, race, education and age when he requested housing. He claims an Airbnb host rejected his initial application but subsequently accepted the same application when Mr. Seldon re-applied using profiles imitating white men, one under the name "Jessie" and another under the name "Todd." The complaint also claims that the company "shamed Selden for speaking out" when he complained about the discriminatory practices. The host agent balked at his claims and instead told Mr. Seldon that "people like [him] were simply victimizing [himself]," according to court documents. Mr. Seldon is seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages as part of the class action. This is not the first time Airbnb has been accused of not doing enough on discrimination. Mr. Seldon's story gained attention earlier this year when it helped inspire the viral hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack, in which a flood of Twitter users shared stories about negative experiences using the house-sharing app and website. That conversation also builds on a 2014 Harvard study that found "requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16% less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively white names." For its part, Airbnb has emphatically denied that it condones racism or discriminatory practices. The company's anti- discrimination policy states that it prohibits "content that promotes discrimination, bigotry, racism, hatred, harassment or harm against any individual or group, and we require all users to comply with local laws and regulations." Airbnb's director of public affairs reiterated the company's anti- discrimination policy in an email to Mashable. "While we do not comment on pending litigation, we strongly believe that racial discrimination is unacceptable and it flies in the face of our mission to bring people together," wrote Nick Papas. ". . . We are taking aggressive action to fight discrimination and eliminate unconscious bias in our community." Mashable has reached out to Mr. Seldon's attorney for comment. AIR INDIA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Global Trade reports that Air India and Air New Zealand, the last two defendants remaining among nearly three dozen air carriers sued for antitrust violations, have agreed to settlements of $12.5 million and $35 million, respectively. Those settlements bring the decade-long class action litigation to a conclusion. The plaintiffs' cumulative recoveries in the air cargo shipping services litigation exceed $1.2 billion. "After more than a decade of relentless effort, we are pleased to add these final settlements to our existing recoveries and achieve justice for those impacted by the defendants' alleged anticompetitive practices," said Hollis Salzman, an attorney with the Robins Kaplan law firm and co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class. Many of the world's largest airlines were named in the civil class action lawsuit, which was scheduled for trial in September of 2016 in a federal court in New York. The legal action was originally brought in February 2006 over an alleged global conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of air cargo services. Eight years later, the plaintiffs had accumulated settlements $750 million. A year after that, total recoveries topped $1 billion. In October 2014, a federal magistrate recommended the certification of a class of direct purchasers. In July 2015, the court certified the class. In August of last year, the court denied the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the case without trial and set a court date for September. Earlier this year, Polar Air and Air China settled with the plaintiffs, leaving Air India and Air New Zealand as only remaining defendants. In criminal antitrust probes running parallel to the civil case, 21 different air cargo providers pleaded guilty and have agreed to criminal fines of more than $1.8 billion. The Air India and Air New Zealand settlements are subject to final approval by the court. The civil litigation, titled In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, is pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Frozen Food Items Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is voluntarily recalling various Not- Ready-To Eat frozen food items due to the potential for these products to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. This voluntary action is being undertaken in cooperation with the US Food and Drug Administration because the recalled products contain vegetables that are part of the recent CRF Frozen Foods recall. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses to date have been reported to Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. for the products involved in this voluntary recall. Products covered by this voluntary recall were distributed in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and include only those products listed below currently in distribution and for sale. Specific product names and product information are listed below. We have modified the listing because we have identified five items that we determined are not impacted by the recall and have removed them from our list. Other products regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that contain meat and poultry products are also affected by this recall and are subject to another recall announcement issued from that agency. No other Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. retail or food service-branded products are impacted by this voluntary recall. Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is working with our customers to remove the products from store shelves and distribution. Consumers who have purchased these items are advised to discard them or return them to the store where originally purchased. Consumers with questions should call our Consumer Affairs Hotline at (855) 742 - 5011, open between 7 AM to 5 PM PDT, Monday through Sunday. For media inquiries please contact Paul Taylor at (909) 477-4800. We will be contacting our customers regarding specific lot codes and shipments that are impacted by this recall. Product # Description: Pack Size --------- ------------ --------- 229650 WAHOO-BATTERED VEGGIE FRIES 6/2 lb. bags 241120 FRED'S BATTERED CORN NUGGET 6/2 lb. bags 241550 PONDEROSA BATTERED SWEET CORN 6/2 lb. bags NUGGET 241620 GOLDEN VALUE BATTERED CORN 4/3 lb. bags NUGGET 241720 FRED'S SPICY BREADED CORN NUGGET 6/2 lb. bags w/JALAPENO 672685 MOLLY'S KITCHEN BATTERED SWEET 6/2 lb. bags CORN NUGGETS 673692 MOLLY'S KITCHEN BATTERED 6/2 lb. bags VEGETABLE STICKS 864964 MOLLY'S KITCHEN SPICY BREADED 6/2 lb. bags CORN NUGGET w/JALAPENO 82070 TAI PEI MADE TO ORDER GARDEN 8/18 oz. pails VEGETABLE RICE 82072 TAI PEI PDQ SHRIMP FRIED RICE 9/12 oz. pails 7007700806 TAI PEI SHRIMP FRIED RICE 8/12 oz. pails 7007701048 VIP-CORN CUT 12/16 oz. 7007701065 VIP-QP PETITE PEAS 12/16 oz. 7007701248 VIP-CORN CUT 12/32 oz. 7007706448 VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC SWEET 6 pk./24 oz. CORN 7007706464 VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC PEAS 6 pk./24 oz. 7007706476 VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC MIXED 6 pk./24 oz. VEGETABLES 7007706548 VIP-STEAMWORKS SWEET CUT CORN 12 pk./12 oz. 7007706576 VIP-STEAMWORKS MIX VEGETABLES 12 pk./12 oz. 56857 OLD PARK SOUTHWEST VEGETABLE 162 ct./1.5 oz. SPRING ROLL 5650053 AJINOMOTO VEGETABLE FRIED RICE 9 ct./3 lb. bags 5650203 MINH VEGETABLE FRIED RICE 4 ct./3 lb. bags 5650213 JADE MOUNTAIN VEGETABLE FRIED 4 ct./3 lb. bags RICE 5650233 TRADER JOE'S VEGETABLE FRIED 24/1 lb. bags RICE 5650243 FIRST STREET VEGETABLE FRIED RICE 12/1 lb. bags 5650263 HY VEE FRIED RICE-VEGETABLE 12/1 lb. bags 5650273 AJINOMOTO VEGETABLE FRIED RICE 9/3 lb. bags 275720 Fred's Battered Green Beans 6/2 lb. bags (limited to date code 0945280 on the master case) 671850 Molly's Kitchen Battered Green 6/2 lb. bags Beans (limited to date code 0945280 on the master case) ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Moot Class Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Nakamura, Esq. -- anakamura@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on April 12, 2016, in Chen, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 13- 16816, the Ninth Circuit considered whether an unaccepted offer of judgment and tender of payment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 to fully settle -- and thereby moot -- a plaintiff's individual claims would also moot putative class action claims. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), Judge Raymond C. Fisher, writing for the panel, held that an unaccepted offer and tender of payment was not sufficient to moot a plaintiff's class action claims. On February 14, 2013, plaintiff Florencio Pacleb filed a class action complaint against defendant Allstate in the Northern District of California, alleging he received five phone calls from Allstate in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA). In April 2013, Allstate made a Rule 68 offer of judgment to plaintiff to settle his individual claims, plus injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Allstate deposited $20,000 in full settlement in an escrow account, to be paid to plaintiff upon entry of a district court judgment. When the offer elapsed without a response from plaintiff, Allstate filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that because its Rule 68 offer would have satisfied all of plaintiff's individual claims, his claims were effectively moot. Allstate also sought dismissal of plaintiff's class claims, arguing that if plaintiff's individual claims were mooted, his class claims were also mooted. District Court judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Allstate's motion to dismiss, and later granted its motion to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Campbell-Ewald's Unanswered Question While the court agreed with Allstate that its offer of judgment would fully satisfy plaintiff's individual claims, it rejected Allstate's argument that this mooted plaintiff's class claims. The court relied on Campbell-Ewald to hold that an unaccepted offer of judgment to settle individual claims does not moot class action claims. Campbell-Ewald left unanswered the question of whether the outcome would be different if a defendant deposited the full settlement amount into an account payable to plaintiff, and the court entered judgment for plaintiff in that amount. Allstate argued that because it deposited the full amount of settlement funds -- $20,000 -- into an account payable to plaintiff upon entry of judgment, plaintiff's individual and class claims were mooted. Relying on Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), the court held that Allstate's tender of payment was irrelevant, because even if plaintiff's individual claims were fully satisfied, an unaccepted Rule 68 offer still would not moot a class action, as long as the plaintiff could still file a timely motion for class certification, which he could. Alternate Reasons to Deny The Court then offered two alternate reasons why plaintiff's individual and class claims were not mooted by Allstate's offer of judgment and deposit of funds into an account payable to plaintiff. First, the Court went on to say that even if Pitts were not controlling, its ruling would not change. Relying on Campbell-Ewald, the Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to decline an offer of judgment on individual claims in order to pursue relief on behalf of a putative class. To hold otherwise, the Court reasoned, would allow defendants to use the mootness doctrine to "pick off" named plaintiffs and deny them a fair opportunity to pursue class-wide relief. Second, the Court held that even if Allstate could moot an entire class action by mooting a plaintiff's individual claims, here plaintiff's claims were not mooted because under Campbell-Ewald, plaintiff must actually receive all the relief to which he is entitled. Since Allstate's release of the $20,000 was contingent on the district court's dismissal, plaintiff had not yet received funds, and therefore had not received his entitled-to relief. Takeaway Judge Chen is one of several post-Campbell-Ewald cases rejecting defendants' attempts to moot a putative class action by mooting the named plaintiff's individual claims. See, e.g., Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., No. 14-3423, 2016 WL 1359220 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2016); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016); Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). (See our Brady post here). However, another judge in the Southern District of New York saw things differently in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 574 (AKH), 2016 WL 1253607 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2016), holding that a defendant's payment of plaintiff's individual claims plus court costs required entry of judgment. AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Choose Class ------------------------------------------------------------ John Nucci, Esq. -- JFNucci@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that as securities litigation becomes increasingly globalized, the Mintz Levin Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery practice is constantly monitoring and participating in jurisprudential developments in a number of countries, both alone and through collaboration with foreign counsel. For example, in Australia, where the procedure to consolidate cases is not uniform, some securities class action cases may overlap, leaving issuers in the undesirable position of having to defend against claims of misrepresentation on two fronts. This scenario recently played out in New South Wales, where the Court found an interesting and workable solution to a problem with concurrent class actions in Smith v. Australian Executor Trustees Limited; and Creighton v. Australian Executor Trustees Limited. The Court's decision came in response to the filing of two parallel class actions brought by the lead plaintiffs in both Smith and Creighton against Australian Executor Trustees Limited ("AET"). Both cases arose from the collapse of Provident Capital Limited ("Provident"), for which AET was a trustee. Each class was comprised of holders of Provident debentures, who argued that they suffered losses due to AET's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the financial position of Provident, and alleged that AET failed to take steps to adequately protect their interests. While the claims of each class arose from the same basic set of facts, there were several key differences between the classes. Perhaps most relevantly, the Creighton class was "open," while the Smith class was "closed." As a result, every member of the Smith class was necessarily a member of the Creighton class (but not vice versa). The precise legal theories relied on by each class varied as well, and both classes claimed different losses based on the date by which each argued AET should have begun to ensure that a receiver was appointed for Provident. In addition, counsel for both classes operated under a different funding framework. AET, unsurprisingly, was dismayed at the prospect of having to defend against similar claims twice. To that end, it argued that one class should not be permitted to continue, or, in the alternative, that both proceedings should be consolidated. Creighton argued that the Smith claim, which was brought later, should be stayed pending a decision on Creighton's claim. Smith argued that both proceedings should continue and be heard together under an order that evidence in one action would be evidence in the other. The Court began with the uncontested notion that it has broad powers of case management in class action litigation under sections 166 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Essentially, the Court has the general power to make orders it believes are appropriate to ensure justice is done, including an order that one or more actions no longer continue. While nothing in the Civil Procedure Act or any other Australian authority offered explicit guidance regarding what should be done in this situation, the Court listed and considered a number of factors relevant to ordering consolidation, including 1) the experience of the practitioners; 2) the costs to be incurred by each class; 3) the terms of the funding for each class; 4) the nature and scope of the causes of action and legal theories advanced in each claim; 5) any conflicts of interest; 6) the size and involvement of the proposed representative plaintiff; 7) the priority of commencement of the actions; and 8) the status of each action. The Court dealt with each consideration, but found that most of the factors were either inapplicable or irrelevant. The Court agreed with AET that it would be unjust to force AET to defend against two class actions with overlapping class members; as such an outcome would essentially force AET to defend the same claims twice. Thus, it was faced with three possible solutions to this case management problem. It could 1) consolidate the proceedings; 2) allow only one proceeding to go forward; or 3) make orders necessary to prevent debenture holders from being members of more than one class. The Court immediately ruled out the option of consolidating the proceedings, particularly where counsel for each class was uncooperative with each other. In doing so, the Court showed a reticence to force a consolidation on class members and counsel where such an arrangement might lead to legal representation and strategy that one class -- if not both classes -- did not plan on. The Court also declined to stay one proceeding, as the Court believed it would be inappropriate to choose one competing proceeding over the other where both were properly brought. As a result, the Court chose the option which would allow it to perform the smallest amount of case management and decision-making possible: ordering that members of the Smith class, who were necessarily members of the Creighton class, could opt out of one or both classes. In the event that class members did not opt out, the Court would order that they had opted out of Creighton. In other words, a Smith class member could choose to be a member of either the Smith class or the Creighton class, and in the event they did not do so, the Court would choose the Smith class for them. The actions would then proceed together, with all evidence in one action also entered in the other. This result shows a real reluctance of the Australian Court to exert any more case management over class actions than was absolutely necessary, despite the fact that the Court had very broad power to manage the cases as it saw fit. The Court instead fashioned a solution which would balance AET's right to not have to defend a claim by the same plaintiffs twice with the plaintiffs' right to choose the class, representation, and legal theories they preferred. That solution was, essentially, to stay out of the way as much as possible. It will be interesting to see whether other jurisdictions follow the "hands off" approach of the Court in Smith/Creighton going forward. ALPHABET INC: Faces Derivative Suit Over Antitrust Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that members of the Alphabet Inc. board have been hit with a civil suit in California state court accusing them of "recklessly" exposing the company to billions in antitrust fines in the European Union. The lawsuit, filed on May 23 by Robbins Arroyo partner Brian Robbins, comes after the European Commission in late April announced its preliminarily finding that Alphabet subsidiary Google Inc. broke EU antitrust rules by bundling apps on its Android mobile operating system. Pre-loading Google apps on Android disadvantages developers of competing mobile software, the commission says, although Google has argued that consumers have a wide array of choices just a couple of clicks away. A Google spokesman declined to comment on the case. The suit, a derivative action filed in the name of an Alphabet stockholder, alleges that Alphabet's board plowed ahead with those practices knowing that the company was at risk for massive regulatory penalties. Under EU law, it notes, the company could be on the hook for 10 percent of its global revenue -- or $7.4 billion. "Since at least November 2010, Alphabet's board was aware that EU regulators were formally investigating the company's European business practices . . . . Nevertheless, the individual defendants permitted Alphabet's unlawful and anticompetitive Android practices to continue unabated for years," states the complaint, filed in San Mateo County Superior Court. The suit names as defendants Alphabet executives Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and other board members including John Doerr, a venture capitalist with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating their fiduciary responsibility, wasting corporate assets and unjustly enriching themselves. It asks the court to award damages and to order the company to put forward a reform plan for a stockholder vote, including a proposal to overhaul Android's licensing and bundling practices. ARIZONA: Prisons Ordered to Improve Inmate Health Care Quality -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a judge in a class-action lawsuit that protests the quality of health care in Arizona's prisons has ordered the state to improve medical and mental health services for inmates after attorneys who won a settlement in the case complained that officials were dragging their feet in making required changes. The order on May 20 from U.S. Magistrate Judge David Duncan requires the state to come up with a plan for meeting settlement requirements that set deadlines for when inmates are given medications and seen by health providers. Attorneys who represented the prisoners contend that the state's prisons haven't improved since the October 2014 settlement, saying Arizona has dramatically inflated its compliance figures and failed to carry out many requirements called for by the agreement. They cited a medical expert who said a 59-year-old man at a Yuma prison with end-stage liver disease had died from complications from a massive infection. The expert said the prisoner's requests for medical attention weren't heeded despite his claim that he was bleeding in his legs and that his lesions were swarmed by flies. "My best hope is that the state acknowledges the gravity of the problem and also acknowledges that the solution to the problem is more clinical staff," said Don Specter, one of the attorneys for the inmates. "They are way understaffed and can't provide adequate care until they get more staff." The Arizona Department of Corrections didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on May 20. The settlement was won on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates after some complained that their cancer went undetected or they were told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment. As part of the settlement, state officials agreed to seek more money from the Legislature to increase health care staffing, offer cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow requirements in treating patients with chronic diseases and provide more out-of- cell time to prisoners kept in isolation cells. Lawmakers gave the Department of Corrections an additional $6.6 million in health care funding last year in response to the settlement. The lawsuit against Arizona Corrections Director Charles Ryan and another prison official alleged the failure of medical staff at one prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate resulted in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant woman at full term. It said another inmate with a history of prostate cancer had to wait more than two years for a biopsy, and nothing was done for a prisoner who suffered from depression and told staff members he was suicidal before he killed himself. Prison officials have denied the allegations and didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing when making the settlement. The prisoners weren't seeking money damages and instead asked for a court order declaring that Arizona's prisons violated constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Adams" Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Sean Adams and Janaka Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 3:16-cv-01178-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 16, 2016), seeks actual and punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs, and other and further relief for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court and received a discharge of debt including that with the Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Bank of America, under false pretenses and/or without a permissible purpose, obtained each Plaintiff's personal credit information. Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. The Defendants are represented by: Deborah L. Raymond, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH L. RAYMOND 445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 120 Del Mar, CA 92014 Tel: (858) 481-9559 Fax: (858) 724-0747 Email: draymondlaw@gmail.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, Suite 1902 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com BELGIUM: Inmates to File Class Action Over Poor Living Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sputnik reports that inmates of correctional facilities in Brussels and the Belgian region of Wallonia intend to file a class action against the Belgian authorities due to a sharp deterioration in their living conditions caused by the ongoing prison guards strike, a local law firm said on May 19. According to Arnauts law firm, the exact number of prisoners who will join the lawsuit is yet unknown, as its office continues to receive phone calls from inmates. Prison guards in Belgium have been on strike for 24 days in a stand against an increase in the retirement age and staff shortage issues that have led to extra shifts. As a result of the strike, inmates have been deprived of regular access to showers, walks and phone calls, which has led to riots and several suicide attempts. In recent weeks, courts have ordered Belgium to pay fines of up to 10,000 euros (some $11,300) over the deteriorating detention conditions. BESTAR INC: Recalls Juvenile Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bestar Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 26 Juvenile dressers (in addition, about 250 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The recalled dressers are unstable, posing a serious tip-over and entrapment hazard that can result in death or serious injuries to children. This recall involves Bestar Dream Dressers. The dressers are juvenile five-drawer dressers sold as part of the Juvenil four- piece children's bedroom set. The dressers were sold in the colors brown and white. The dressers are 48 inches high, 30 inches wide and 16 inches deep, and weigh about 108 lbs. They have a melamine resin surface and the drawer handles have a matte chrome finish. The brown dresser is model number 49250-1152 and the white dresser is model number 49250-1117. The model number is on the box and the brochure. Both dressers have UPC number 63753045292 on the box and the brochure. None reported in the United States. Health Canada has received one report of a child in Canada receiving cuts and bruises from a dresser that tipped over without a restraint strap attached. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/48Trv5 The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold Online at appliancesconnection.com, Cymax.com and Wayfair.com from June 2014 through October 2015 for about $300. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dressers and place the furniture into areas that children cannot access. Contact Bestar for a free repair kit containing two boards that the consumer can attach to the back of the unit, screws, a metal bracket tip-over restraint, a power drill and drill bit, new feet for the dresser, new installation instructions and warning labels. Bestar is offering free in home installation to any consumer who needs help installing the repair kit. If a consumer is unable or unwilling to install the repair kit, Bestar will pick up the dresser and provide a full refund of the purchase price. BLUE BUFFALO: Judge Approves $32MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that thousands of customers who bought mislabeled Blue Buffalo pet food products will get a refund after a federal judge approved a $32 million settlement in St. Louis on May 19. Connecticut-based Blue Buffalo admitted that some of its dog and cat food contained poultry byproduct meal even though its bags and marketing materials said they did not contain the ingredient. "The company never had any intent to sell any product that was mislabeled," Steven Zalesin, Blue Buffalo's attorney, said in court on May 19. Blue Buffalo maintains that it was defrauded by a supplier, Wilber-Ellis Co., that provided the poultry byproduct meal and mislabeled some of the ingredients shipped to its customers. Several customers filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis in October 2014 seeking class action status, alleging Blue Buffalo's True Blue Promise was misleading and that they paid a premium price for the company's products based on the false information. Blue Buffalo's True Blue Promise states its products don't contain poultry byproducts or preservatives. On May 19, U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel approved a settlement that gives Blue Buffalo customers who filed a claim up to $100 for those without a receipt and up to $2,000 for those with a receipt for products purchased between May 7, 2008 and Dec. 18, 2015. More than 100,000 customers filed claims by the April 14 deadline. The judge also approved attorney's fees and expenses for 25 percent of the settlement, or $8 million. "We are very pleased that the judge analyzed the settlement and confirmed our understanding that it provides a good result for the class," said Scott Kamber, an attorney representing customers who filed the lawsuit. "This lawsuit goes a long way to demonstrating an interest by consumers' attorneys and consumers that companies are held accountable." St. Louis-based Nestle Purina PetCare, the nation's largest pet products company, sued Blue Buffalo in federal court in May 2014, accusing Blue Buffalo of lying to customers about its use of ingredients. In that lawsuit, which remains pending, Purina alleged Blue Buffalo's advertising falsely claimed Blue Buffalo's products were superior to those of competitors, including Purina, and did not contain chicken or poultry byproducts. "We are pleased pet parents will finally see some resolution from Blue Buffalo over the false statements they made about the ingredients used in their pet foods," said Purina spokesman Keith Schopp, calling it the largest pet food class action settlement on record. "We believe it's unfortunate that it took more than a year after Blue Buffalo admitted their advertising was false -- and more than two years after Purina discovered these issues and sued Blue Buffalo in a separate case -- to see Blue Buffalo take responsibility and have this case settled." CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Awaits Certification of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Estefania Duran, writing for CKNW, reports that a former RCMP officer who allegedly suffered years of sexual harassment while working in Alberta, is still waiting for a class-action lawsuit to be certified. Krista Carle is one of the hundreds of female Mounties who claim they've suffered harassment on the job. "Madam Justice Gropper still hasn't rendered her decision yet. We're hopeful maybe in the next month or so." She has been waiting for an answer since 2011, but she says they're not ready to give up. "You see a lot of awful things in policing and I guess you expect better behavior from members that you work with, and it's disappointing and it definitely takes a toll on you. At this time there's over five hundred women involved in the class action lawsuit in B.C. alone, and those numbers grow weekly." She says unless the culture changes, complaints will continue to surface. "It still bothers me. I would've loved to have stayed in for 25 to 30 years, but I simply had to get out of the organization because it was making me sick." Former RCMP Corporal Catherine Galliford reached an out-of-court settlement in her sexual harassment lawsuit at the beginning of May. CANADA: Settles B.C. MSP Class Action for $7.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Katherine Dedyna, writing for Times Colonist, reports that a proposed $7.5 million settlement has been reached in a class- action lawsuit launched by a Cowichan emergency physician for treatment fees denied by the province to doctors who cared for patients not covered by the B.C. Medical Services Plan. Dr. James Halvorson has fought for more than 18 years, making scores of trips to the Lower Mainland, sometimes for days, to keep the issue alive with the legal team handling the case. "I'm very pleased with the co-operative approach the government is taking in getting this thing wrapped up," Dr. Halvorson, 57, said on May 20. "It was delayed for an inordinate amount of time." Doctors' bills submitted to the B.C. Medical Services Commission were denied for patients who were in arrears with their MSP premiums, had never enrolled in the plan or were not residents of B.C., said Arthur Grant, one of a team of Vancouver-based lawyers who worked on the case. The notice of proposed settlement applies to any B.C. doctor who billed on a fee-for-service basis from July 23, 1992 to April 30, 1996. "It's been a long hard battle, for Dr. Halvorson and for us," Mr. Grant said. "I want to emphasize he has stood by us and the case throughout the whole path -- not an easy thing. "I'm really glad that we're bringing this to an end and that the doctors are going to get some recognition of their work." The class action was certified against the commission and the B.C. Attorney General on behalf of the Ministry of Health on July 12, 2012, requesting compensation for "unjust enrichment" by the province in not paying doctors for their work. Lawyers for both sides entered into the settlement agreement subject to the approval by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair on July 11. She will decide whether the proposal is "fair, reasonable" and in the best interests of the doctors. If approved, the $7.5 million settlement will be binding on doctors who apply as "full and final satisfaction" of the class members' claims. "This is a settlement, not an admission of liability," Mr. Grant said. However, he views it a "an important recognition" of doctors' efforts on behalf of people who did not have health care coverage. Most doctors encountered some rejected claims as a result of B.C. policies at the time, Mr. Grant said. But the rate was far higher for emergency-room doctors and plastic surgeons -- presumably performing emergency treatment -- who had no way of checking whether the people they treated had MSP coverage, he added. If the proposal goes through, the amount of compensation MDs will get will depend on how many doctors apply. "We are really hopeful that the message gets out to many doctors - - many of whom are retired now," Mr. Grant said. "The whole idea here is to acknowledge the contribution that physicians made during that time period to British Columbia's medicare system, without compensation." The Ministry of Health said in a statement that since June 30, 1996, when B.C. changed its Medicare Protection Act, MSP became mandatory for residents. "A person can no longer have their MSP coverage cancelled because their premiums are in arrears. . . . So, in any situation, a person with MSP coverage would be treated." In emergencies, all people are treated regardless of their status, for example non-residents of B.C., or their ability to pay. In non-emergency situations, non-residents are advised how much treatment will cost and make an informed decision on whether they wish to be treated or not. The ministry said the province "strongly supports the use of alternative dispute resolution in civil cases," noting that after mediation in late 2015, the tentative agreement to settle the claim with doctors was reached. It did not respond as to why it continued legal action for so many years before mediation. "We've been in court so many times on this," Mr. Grant said. "The first certification hearing lasted eight days, which we lost in 2000. We went to a four-day appeal and we won that in 2003 in the B.C. Court of Appeal." The $7.5-million proposal includes $2.5 million in legal fees for Mr. Grant and many others who worked on the case. Many documents were not available until late in the game, he said, and a lot of discoveries were made as they went along. "It's occupied a lot of my time and a lot of other people's time," Mr. Grant said. B.C. now requires all residents to enrol in the MSP. People other than seniors with adjusted net incomes above $30,000 pay full premiums of $900 per year for a single person or $1,800 for a family. B.C. is the only province that requires people to pay premiums for medical care. Other provinces roll payments into the tax system. CAPITAL BUILDING: Settles Janitors' Wage Theft Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Angie Wieck, writing for Inforum, reports that janitors who are sub-contracted to clean the Herberger's store in the Moorhead Center Mall are now eligible to submit wage theft claims as part of a $425,000 class-action lawsuit settlement against Capital Building Services Group in Minnesota. Workers will be allowed to review pay stubs and potentially file claims for back wages and damages. The janitors were assisted by the Minnesota Workers Center Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha. According to a CTUL news release, the organization has helped secure over $2 million in back wages for working families in Minnesota. Wage theft has been a problem for janitors who clean retail chains in recent years. A similar case was won in 2015 against Kinco Services, the company that oversaw the cleaning of Kohl's, Home Depot and other stores in the Twin Cities. In that case, workers complained of having to work up to 35 hours a week off the clock. Claims should be submitted by Thursday, May 26, to Adam Hansent, 4600 IDS Center, 80 8th St. S., Minneapolis, MN 55402. CARAMEL FACTORY: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Milk & Soy ------------------------------------------------------------- The Caramel Factory, LLC of Batesville, MS, is recalling the following products for undeclared allergens: Chocolate covered candies with undeclared milk and soy --- white and dark chocolate cashew turtles and tortoises --- white and dark chocolate pecan turtles and tortoises --- white and dark chocolate pecan krispie clusters --- white and dark chocolate peanut clusters --- white and dark chocolate cashew clusters MS molded chocolate --- sugar free milk chocolate peanut cluster --- sugar free milk chocolate cashew cluster Candies with undeclared milk and/or soy --- fudge --- pecan fudge --- peanut butter fudge --- sea salt caramel fudge --- salt water taffy Rice Krispcicles --- Candies with undeclared tree nuts, soy, and/or milk pralines Baked Goods with undeclared tree nuts, soy, milk, and wheat cocoons Candy with undeclared eggs and milk --- sugar free salt water taffy Chocolate coated baked Goods with undeclared eggs, soy, wheat and/or milk --- White Trash --- Oreos Rice Krispcicles --- chocolate covered Twinkies --- chocolate covered pretzels Baked goods with undeclared eggs, soy, wheat and/or milk --- caramel sugar cookies --- caramel cakes Baked goods with undeclared eggs, tree nuts, soy, wheat and/or milk --- turtle brownies --- praline cookies People who have allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, and/or wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. These retail products were distributed from our retail store in Batesville, MS prior to May 11, 2016. The products are packaged, clear plastic packages with the name of each product. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that these products were distributed in packaging that did not declare these allergens Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to return any unused product to us for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-662-563-9900, Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/Y0ALSP CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking "Enea" Class Allegations Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling striking class allegations in the case, Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. On February 4, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order striking the class allegations and the case has since been remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings as to the seven named plaintiffs. CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Class Action Goes to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeals court has sent the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, to arbitration. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members should be compelled to arbitration. CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Class Action Appeal Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal is pending in the case, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan." "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. "On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. "On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. "The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016." CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Namdar" Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asaf Namdar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02381-RJD-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC owns and operates a debt collection firm in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com CJ DANNEMILLER: Recalls Roasted Sunflower Kernels Due to Listeria ----------------------------------------------------------------- C. J. Dannemiller Co. is recalling SunOpta 50# bags and 30# cases of roasted sunflower kernels roasted and salted, and sunflower kernels roasted no salt because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria. Listeria is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled Sun Opta Roasted Sunflower kernels - roasted and salted and Sun Opta Roasted No Salt were distributed in the following states: AR, VA, IN, MI in bulk packaging between Feb.22, 2016 and May 17, 2016. The product comes in a 50 lb, White paper bag marked with the lot codes: 8B6M17, 8D6M12, 8D6M11. Lot code is located on the top center of the bag or in a 30 lb. brown corrugated case with MFG DATE of 3/21/16 or 3/28/16. MFG DATE is on the product label. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. (Listeria is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. For more information, please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website at www.cdc.gov.) Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the company continue their investigation as to the source of the problem. Consumers who have purchased 50 lbs. bags of the recalled product are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800- 624-8671 M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/oPHpKK COMMUNITY COALITION: "Brewer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cierra Brewer, Carla Brown and Cynthea Gonzalez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action, Plaintiffs v. Community Coalition for Children and Youth, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01221- SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Community Coalition for Children and Youth, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 2531 9th Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida 34205. It does business as New Path Academy, a day care and schooling program for children with four locations throughout the Bradenton and Tampa Bay area. Brewer was employed as a kitchen aide and finance assistant, working at all of the Defendant's locations. Brown and Gonzalez worked as a day care employees at Defendant's East Center, located at 2601 711 Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida 34208. Plaintiffs claim to have been denied overtime pay. The Defendants are represented by: Amiee R. Buckman, Esq. Yardley D. Buckman II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, PA 2023 Constitution Blvd Sarasota, FL 34231 Tel: (941) 923-7700 Fax: (941) 923-7736 Email: attorney@buckmanandbuckman.com COX COMMUNICATIONS: Timely Notice of Removal Debars Reinstatement ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California, Southern Division, denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case BILL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.: CV 16-01915- CJC(JPRx) (C.D. Cal.) Bill Taylor filed a case against Cox Communications California, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc. in state court in 2012. Taylor alleges causes of action for violations of a number of sections of the California Labor Code, as well as unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Essentially, Plaintiff argues that Cox systematically underpaid its field technicians -- employees who travel to customers' residences to install and repair TV and internet services. On November 28, 2012, defendants removed the matter to the present court. Defendants' notice of removal argued that the class's aggregated claims actually summed to more than $24,000,000, and that the present court had original jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that in light of the First Amended Complaint's express pleading that the CAFA amount-in- controversy requirement was not met, defendants were required to prove to a legal certainty that there was actually more than $5,000,000 in controversy. The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand. Litigation proceeded in state court, and the state court recently certified a class of field technicians who participated in a program called "Home Start," in which they were permitted to take their field vehicles home with them at night rather than return them to defendants' garage. Plaintiff argues that this arrangement violates California labor laws. Defendants again removed, indicating that following class certification, they consulted their records to determine whether the potential claims for field technicians who participated in the Home Start program totaled more than $5,000,000.00, finding that they did. They now argue that because the first amended complaint does not state grounds for removal, and because they were never served with any other paper that indicates grounds for removal, they were entitled to remove at any time provided that they presented adequate evidence. Plaintiff moved to remand. A copy of Judge Carney's order dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/vbHzJPfrom Leagle.com. Bill Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by John Glugoski -- Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- at Righetti Glugoski PC Defendants, represented by Michael T Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz -- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Thomas R Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP CYTRX CORPORATION: $4-Mil. Class Settlement Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge George H. King of the Central District of California granted final approval of a $4 million class action settlement in the case entitled IN RE CYTRX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. CV 14-1956-GHK (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.) CytRx 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 June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits pending against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California were consolidated in the matter of In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956- GHK (PJWx) (the "Federal Class Action"), and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, against us, certain of our officers and directors, a freelance writer, and certain underwriters, including Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co., LLC, Aegis Corp., and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC." "The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially misleading statements and omitting material information in our shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement under Rule 424(b)(2) filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise out of our alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with us, as well as our December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages, including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may deem just and proper. "On December 5, 2014, we and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing off calendar. On July 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed by us, the individual defendants and the underwriters. On August 7, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and on September 8, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, in part. On October 23, 2015, the Court took the motion to dismiss under submission and, as a result of the settlement of the case . . . the motion to dismiss has not been ruled on by the Court. "On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers and each of our directors, as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock pursuant or traceable to our public offering that closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in our filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. "On October 14, 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx). On December 29, 2015, as a result of the parties informing the Court that the settlement of the Federal Class Action also resolved the claims and allegations in the Rajasekaran case, the Superior Court deemed the case closed. "On December 10, 2015, we announced that we had reached an agreement to settle the federal consolidated securities class action and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was held on January 11, 2016. The agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing and includes a full release of CytRx and the current and former directors and officers in connection with the allegations. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and Court approval. The terms of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the class of $4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by our insurance carriers. "We will also issue the equivalent number of shares of our common stock to the class of $4,500,000 at the prevailing stock price at the time of the Court's final approval of the settlement agreement, but not less than a minimum of 1,200,000 shares and not more than a maximum of 1,800,000 shares. On January 9, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a settlement fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement for May 9, 2016." The settling parties are: Lead Plaintiff Deepak Gupta and defendants CytRx Corporation, Steven A. Kriegsman, John Y. Caloz, David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Joseph Rubinfeld, Shirley Selter as representative for Marvin S. Selter, Richard L. Wennekamp, Thomas Michael Meyer, Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Aegis Capital Corp., and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC. Chief District Judge King grants final approval of the settlement as set forth in the stipulation as it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations and treats all class members fairly. Chief District Judge King finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the proposed class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, inclusive. Chief District Judge King certifies lead plaintiff Deepak Gupta as class representative for the class and appoints lead counsel Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as class counsel for the class. The court awards lead plaintiff Deepak Gupta a service award of $4,375 as fair and reasonable compensation for his services. The court directs payment of up to $250,000 to the claims administrator, Gilardi & Co. LLC. The court grants an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,125,000 of the cash and stock settlement fund, representing 25% of the settlement fund, plus interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the settlement fund. The couurt grants $48,179.47 in litigation expenses, plus interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the settlement fund. CytRX is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. A copy of Chief District Judge King's judgment and order dated May 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/J0YR84from Leagle.com. Bangzheng Chen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA; Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP Deepak Gupta, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Alexander L Burns -- Melinda A Nicholson -- Michael J Palestina -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP; Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray Victor Perri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situted, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP; Howard G Smith -- at Law Offices of Howard G Smith Hyun Dong Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP Mitchell Kahn, Brent Reed and Gordon NiedermayerMovants, represented by Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti; Patrice L Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- at Stull Stull and Brody Michael D Gore, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- at Brodsky and Smith LLC; Ramzi Abadou-- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP Kisuk Cho, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA; Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP John Corbitt, Movant, represented by Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP The CytRx Investor Group, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon -- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Reed R Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Betsy C Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP CytRx Investor Group II, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon -- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Cytrx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander Robert Safyan -- asafyan@pswlaw.com -- Clifford H Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- at Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP Steven A. Kriegsman, Defendant, represented by Allen L Lanstra -- allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Peter Bradley Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Thomas Jerome Nolan -- thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP John Y. Caloz, David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Shirley Selter, Joseph Rubinfeld and Richard L. Wennekamp, Defendants, represented by Thomas Jerome Nolan -- thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP Thomas Michael Meyer, Defendant, represented by Steven M Goldsobel -- at Law Office of Steven M Goldsobel APC Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- John Warren Rissier -- warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP Aegis Capital Corporation and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Defendants, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- John Warren Rissier -- warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- Lucy Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP DAKOTA STYLE: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall ------------------------------------------------------ Dakota Style Foods, Inc. of Clark, South Dakota has expanded its voluntary recall to include 15,158 cases of sunflower kernels because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The sunflower kernels were distributed to 34 customers nation-wide and are sold through retail outlets. The products involved are Dakota Style 16 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 3.5 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 32 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 4 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels, 8 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels and 4 ounce Salted Caramel Sunflower Kernels that were shipped by Dakota Style Foods, Inc. between February 15, 2016 and May 17, 2016. The affected lots are identified by lot codes 8B6M02, 8B6M09, 8B6M17, 8B6M18, 8B6M24, 8B6M25, 8C6M02, 8C6M08, 8C6M10, 8C6M28, 8C6M31 and 8D6M01. The consumer packages are plastic packages bearing the company logo and product name with the lot code located on the back right hand panel of the consumer package. No illnesses have been confirmed to date. The expanded recall resulted from notice by SunOpta, one of Dakota Style's sunflower kernel suppliers, that SunOpta expanded a voluntary recall of certain lots of sunflower kernels. Dakota Style has identified the lots that may have included ingredients received from SunOpta and is actively working to return all affected products. Consumers who have purchased Dakota Style 16 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 3.5 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 32 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 4 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels, 8 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels or 4 ounce Caramel Sunflower Kernels with lot code 8B6M02, 8B6M09, 8B6M17, 8B6M18, 8B6M24, 8B6M25, 8C6M02, 8C6M08, 8C6M10, 8C6M28, 8C6M31 or 8D6M01, located on the back right-hand panel of the consumer package, are urged to return the package to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-446-2779 between 8:30 am and 5 pm CST, Monday through Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/CAqr2t DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Favors Disabled Children ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the case DL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 05-1437 (RCL)(D.D.C.) In order to achieve its aim, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funding to states, including the District of Columbia (District), on the condition that they establish policies and procedures to ensure that free appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to disabled children. Plaintiffs are former preschool-age children in the District with various disabilities, alleges that defendants have systemically failed to provide, or failed to timely provide, special education and related services to them and other children, in violation of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), and District of Columbia law. The plaintiffs have been divided into four subclasses and brought claims that correspond to distinct requirements of the IDEA. More specifically, plaintiffs' claims relate to the District's alleged failures to identify substantial numbers of children who are in need of special education and related services, timely evaluate children for special education and related services, timely issue eligibility determinations for special education and related services, and provide smooth and effective transitions for children from Part C to Part B services. In 2010, the court found that the District's policies were inadequate to meet its obligations under the IDEA and that they violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal funding. After hearing the evidence at trial, the court found that the District's prior liability extended to April 6, 2011. To remedy the violations, the court then issued a structural injunction, which included programmatic requirements and numerical goals that would remain in effect until the District demonstrated sustained compliance. After the trial but before the court issued its final decision, the Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified the proper interpretation of the commonality requirement for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). Immediately following Wal-Mart, the defendants sought to decertify the consolidated plaintiff class, arguing that it was too broadly defined to satisfy FRCP 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement, which the court rejected. After the Court denied defendants' motion to decertify the class, the District filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit and ultimately prevailed. The D.C. Circuit vacated the Court's original order on class certification grounds, which as a result effectively and entirely vacated the court's various findings of liability. The Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand from the D.C. Circuit, the court certified four subclasses. After the subclasses were certified, plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint, alleging violations of the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, and DC law specific to each subclass. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in 2014. The court partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that the District was liable for violating the IDEA and District law for the period up to April 6, 2011. The court did not grant plaintiffs summary judgment on their Rehabilitation Act claims for that same period. In addition to partially ruling for plaintiffs, the court also partially ruled for defendants on summary judgment. The remainder of plaintiffs' claims went to trial. The claims fell into two categories and relate to two distinct time periods. First, plaintiffs allege that the District has violated the IDEA and District law from April 6, 2011 through the present by failing to adequately identify preschool-age disabled children for the purpose of offering them special education and related services (subclass 1); failing to timely issue eligibility determinations for special education and related services for preschool-age children (subclass 3); and failing to provide a smooth and effective transition from the early intervention program under Part C of the IDEA to preschool special education and related services under Part B by the child's third birthday (subclass 4). Second, plaintiffs claim that the District violated the Rehabilitation Act for the period up to March 22, 2010 by failing adequately to identify preschool-age disabled children for the purposes of offering them special education and related services (subclass 1); failing timely to evaluate preschool-age children for special education and related services (subclass 2); failing timely to issue eligibility determinations for special education and related services for preschool-age children (subclass 3); and failing to provide a smooth and effective transition from the early intervention program under Part C of the IDEA to preschool special education and related services under Part B by the child's third birthday (subclass 4); and that the District acted in bad faith or gross misjudgment as to each subclass. Judge Lamberth entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and finds the District liable for violating the IDEA, District law, and the Rehabilitation Act, and entitled plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief. A copy of Judge Lamberth's memorandum opinion and findings of fact and conclusion of law dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/IQjG2qfrom Leagle.com. DL, FD, TAMEKA FORD, JB, LEAH BLAND, FREDERICK DAVY, MONICA DAVY, TF, ANGELIQUE MOORE, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce J. Terris -- bterris@tpmlaw.com -- Todd A. Gluckman -- tgluckman@tpmlaw.com -- at TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP; Cyrus Mehri at MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC; Margaret A. Kohn -- Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com -- at LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN HW, TIMOTHY LANTRY, ARLETTE MANKEMI, KERIANNE PIESTER, TL, RONALD WISOR, XY, BRYAN YOUNG, TAMMIKA YOUNG, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce J. Terris -- bterris@tpmlaw.com -- Todd A. Gluckman -- tgluckman@tpmlaw.com -- at TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP; Cyrus Mehri at MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC TIMOTHY LANTRY, Plaintiff, Pro se ARLETTE MANKEMI, Plaintiff, Pro se KERIANNE PIESTER, Plaintiff, Pro se RONALD WISOR, Plaintiff, Pro se BRYAN YOUNG, Plaintiff, Pro se TAMMIKA YOUNG, Plaintiff, Pro se Defendants, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Daniel Albert Rezneck, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Matthew Robert Blecher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Robert C. Utiger, DC OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Samuel C. Kaplan -- skaplan@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DYNAMIC PET: Sued Over "Needlike Shards" in Ham Bone for Dogs ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Dynamic Pet Products' and Frick's Meat Products' Real Ham Bone for Dogs produces "extremely hazardous . . . needlelike shards" that can hurt dogs, a class action claims in Independence, Mo. Jackson County Court. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Class Action Appeal to Continue -------------------------------------------------------------- E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing in a class action appeal is scheduled to continue through 2016. On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its website that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through 2016. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Rayner" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against "Rayner" class action lawsuit. On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. EEG INC: Judge Ruled on the Parties' Motions in "Mitchell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Joseph H. McKinley of the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case ROCHELLE MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EEG, INC. d/b/a Empire Beauty School, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15CV-00903-JHM (W.D. Ky.) Plaintiffs, Rochelle Mitchell, Leidre Avery, Cynthia Tobin, Miesha Rae Newby, Kee-Sha Boyd, Tasha Blakey, Jamerica English, Rosita Lewis, and Denco Clayton attended Empire Beauty School (EEG) in Louisville, Kentucky. The nine students signed different versions of the enrollment agreement. The enrollment agreements allow either party to elect to proceed in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action against EEG by filing a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court on November 24, 2015, for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, violation of KRS Section 165A.310 and KRS Section 446.070, and violation of Kentucky's Antitrust Statute KRS Section 367.175. EEG removed the case to the present court on December 23, 2015. EEG moves to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the lawsuit pending alternative dispute resolution proceedings. EEG elected to proceed in arbitration pursuant to the enrollment agreements. EEG maintains that the plaintiffs are required to submit to arbitration every claim asserted in the lawsuit, including any challenge to the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreements that plaintiffs raise in their response to the motion to compel. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to compel arbitration. Chief District Judge McKinley granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and to dismiss or stay the action pending resolution of plaintiffs' claims in arbitration. Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing regarding the motion to compel arbitration is denied. Specifically, the case is stayed and arbitration is compelled regarding all plaintiffs' claims except with regard to the Rochelle Mitchell's claims against EEG. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of fashioning a limited discovery plan regarding Mitchell's claim that her signature on the enrollment agreement was a forgery. A copy of Chief District Judge McKinley's memorandum opinion and order dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/MFwMfu from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Nader G. Shunnarah, Esq. 239 S 5th #1800 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: 502-587-7919 EEG, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caroline L. Pieroni -- caroline.pieroni@dinsmore.com -- R. Kenyon Meyer at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP ELWYN: "Byrd" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Leroy Byrd, Andre Stevenson, and Tyreesha Abdussabur, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all others similarly situated v. Elwyn, Case No. 160400064, was removed from the Common Pleas Philadelphia to the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02275-GJP to the proceeding. The case asserts employment discrimination. Elwyn is a Human Services organization, serving disabled and disadvantaged individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Frederick Robinette, Esq. POST & POST LLC 920 Cassatt Rd Suite 102 200 Berwyn Park Suite 102 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 913-3034 E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Gonzales, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2000 Market St Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2871 E-mail: jpgonzales@mdwcg.com ELWYN: "Tate" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Terrell Tate, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. Elwyn, Case No. 160401019, was removed from the Common Pleas Philadelphia to the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02276-NIQA to the proceeding. The case asserts a claim for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Elwyn is a Human Services organization, serving disabled and disadvantaged individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Frederick Robinette, Esq. POST & POST LLC 920 Cassatt Rd Suite 102 200 Berwyn Park Suite 102 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 913-3034 E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Gonzales, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2000 Market St. Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2871 E-mail: jpgonzales@mdwcg.com ES FOODS: Recalls Meal Break Products Due to Sunflower Seeds ------------------------------------------------------------ E S Foods of Woodbury, NY is recalling 3700 cases of the following Meal Breaks items containing individually packed Sunrich Natural Sunflower Kernels (Roasted & Salted), Net Wt 1 oz., because the sunflower seeds have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes: Meal Breaks Lot # Best Used By Item # ----------- ----- ------------ ------ Cheese Stick w/ Beef Stick 6111 11/11/16 61406 6124 09/02/16 12/10/16 Cheese Sauce 6126 03/01/17 61410 Cheese Stick 6112 12/09/16 61418 Chips & Dip 6116 12/01/16 61419 Lime Bean Dippers 6112 10/26/16 61420 Cheese Cup 6116 01/15/17 61430 Frosted Flakes w/Cheese 6112 09/19/16 61438 Stick Cinnamon Pop Tarts 6112 12/10/16 61439 PBJ w/Milk 6125 01/11/17 61602 Tuna Salad w/Milk 6126 02/09/17 61603 BBQ Chicken w/Milk 6125 02/09/17 61605 Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The Meal Breaks were distributed in CA, KS, KY, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA and WI to foodservice distributors, food banks, and school meal programs, between the dates of April 21 and May 13, 2016. Products are packed in a master case, and that master case contains the product code number, product description, "Best Used By" Date, and lot code. No illnesses have been reported to date. The potential for contamination was noted after we received notification from SunOpta, our sunflower kernel supplier, pertaining to positive Listeria monocytogenes results. Customers who have purchased any of the affected products must contact E S Foods to arrange for product retrieval. If customers have further distributed any of these items, please immediately contact your accounts, advise them of the recall situation, and have them return their outstanding recalled stocks to you and maintain and share your record of the retrieval of these items. Customers with questions may contact E S Foods at 516-682-5484, Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm, ET. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/Iz1tAL FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Bid for Attorneys' Fees in "Bohannon" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GLYNNIS BOHANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-01894-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees as modified. The parties have settled the class action with agreement by Facebook to bring its refund practices and policies into compliance with the California Family Code, update the relevant language in its terms, and dedicate an internal queue to refund requests for in-app purchases made by U.S. minors and agreement by the plaintiffs to release their, but no other class member's, claims. The parties have agreed on all but attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million in attorneys' fees, $29,115.66 in costs, and $10,000 in incentive payments. Judge Freeman granted the motion, but modified it so that the plaintiffs shall recover attorneys' fees in the amount of $922,092, costs in the amount of $29,115.66, and incentive payments in the amount of $5,000 for each of I.B. And J.W. A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 23, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/CyNMVi from Leagle.com. * * * In a separate Order also dated May 23, 2016, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to advise the Court of whether or not a minor's compromise is required for the release of the named minor Plaintiffs' rights. At the hearing on the parties' motion for settlement approval, the Court expressed several concerns with the submitted draft. Following the hearing, the parties submitted a revised version for approval. The Revised Agreement addresses all but one of the Court's concerns -- whether or not a minor's compromise is necessary prior to resolution of this case. Plaintiffs were directed to submit a response of no more than 3 pages explaining why such a compromise is or is not required by no later than May 26, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/81f7iE from Leagle.com. Glynnis Bohannon, J. W., Julie Wright, Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C., Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter Law, P.C. & Daniel B. Edelman -- edelman@kmblegal.com -- Katz, Marshall and Banks LLP, pro hac vice. I. B., Plaintiff, represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C., Benjamin Gordon Edelman, Attorney of the Law, pro hac vice, Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter Law, P.C. & Daniel B. Edelman, Katz, Marshall and Banks LLP, pro hac vice. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Benjamin Hansel Kleine -- bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kristine Anne Forderer -- kforderer@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Private Scanning Message Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Russell Brandom, writing for The Verge, reports that Facebook may have violated federal privacy laws by scanning private messages, according to a lawsuit certified for class action on May 18 in Northern California District Court. The allegations center around Facebook's practice of scanning and logging URLs sent through the site's private messaging system. Those scans serve a number of purposes, including anti-malware protection and industry-standard searches for child pornography, but may also be used for marketing purposes. The plaintiffs allege that Facebook routinely scans those URLs for advertising and other user-targeting data -- and claim that by maintaining those records in a searchable form, Facebook is violating both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act. Facebook disputes that private messages are scanned in bulk, and maintains the URL data is anonymized and only used in aggregate form. Through the discovery process, the plaintiffs have gained significant access to Facebook source code and engineers, although many of the resulting exhibits are still under seal. The available court records strongly suggest that the company maintains a persistent record of the links sent in private messages. As the plaintiffs' attorneys put it, "the records that Facebook creates from its users' private messages, and which are stored indefinitely, may be put to any use, for any reason, by any Facebook employee, at any time." It's unclear how easily those records could be traced back to the person who sent the message. In a response motion, Facebook described the records as "more akin to The New York Times publishing a list of bestselling books . . . the anonymized and aggregated data is used to indicate the popularity of information." Describing the collection of that data as a privacy violation constitutes "a technical attack on basic elements of computer programming," the company argued. A technical analysis performed on behalf of the plaintiffs seems to contradict Facebook's description of the records. According to that analysis, each messaged URL is stored in a private message database dubbed "Titan," which shows the date and time a message was sent, along with the user IDs of both the sender and the recipient. (Titan may also refer to a particular brand of graph database software.) The analysis provides a specific data query that a Facebook employee could enter to identify anyone who sent or received a URL-linked private message during the period specified by the lawsuit. In a response, Facebook lawyers described the analysis as "speculative." Without access to the source code, it's difficult to assess how effective Facebook's anonymization was. But in the case of the 2012 version of the system, there seems to have been at least some internal ambiguity surrounding the data. Private messages were meant to increase the Like Count without identifying the source of the Like -- but it's unclear how robust that system was. In one email exchange describing the 2012 system for converting URLs sent in messages to Likes, a Facebook employee said, "we have intentionally not proactively messaged what this number is since it's kind of sketchy how we construct it." The May 18 certification rules out any monetary damages, so while the court could prohibit Facebook from conducting similar scans in the future, the plaintiffs won't receive any payout as a result of the ruling. In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson applauded that finding. "We agree with the court's finding that the alleged conduct did not result in any actual harm and that it would be inappropriate to allow plaintiffs to seek damages on a class-wide basis," the statement reads. "The remaining claims relate to historical practices that are entirely lawful, and we look forward to resolving those claims on the merits." The company's practices have changed significantly over time. In 2012, it was revealed that Facebook was increasing a link's Like count each time it was sent in a private message, an incident that plaintiffs take as evidence that the data is tied to a user's profile. According to Facebook testimony, the practice was discontinued shortly after it was revealed. While the company is no longer using private messaging data to boost Like counts, the plaintiffs allege Facebook hasn't stopped collecting URLs from private messages. "Facebook's source code not only reveals that Facebook continues to acquire URL content from private messages, but that it also continues to make use of the content it acquires," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in a recent motion. The majority of information on Facebook is intentionally shared, and as a result can be stored indefinitely and used to target content and advertisements without any legal implications. But links sent in private messages are, by definition, private, and any persistent record that a person had privately shared a specific link -- to a medical clinic or political organization, for instance -- would pose an obvious privacy concern. It still remains to be seen whether the link-logging system at any point violated ECPA or CIPA, but the path is now cleared for the case to proceed. The plaintiffs are due to file an amended complaint by June 8th, ahead of a scheduling conference at the end of the month. FAST RIG SUPPORT: Stipulated Judgment in "Mazzarella" Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ALPHONSE MAZZARELLA, v. FAST RIG SUPPORT, LLC; FIRST AMERICANS SHIPPING AND TRUCKING, INC., Appellants, No. 15-3116 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district court's stipulated judgment requiring the trucking companies, Fast Rig Support, LLC and First Americans Shipping and Trucking, Inc. to pay the plaintiffs overtime. The Third Circuit councluded that the district court correctly determined that the defendants have not met their burden to show that the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) applies. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's May 23, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/6AhFit from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs, including Alphonse Mazzarella, worked for the defendants as truck drivers. They transported water to hydraulic fracking sites within Pennsylvania. Mazzarella asserted that he and his coworkers often worked more than forty hours in a week, but were paid overtime only for work performed above forty-five hours per week, in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and PMWA. William E. Vinsko, Jr., Esq, 253 South Franklin Street, Wilkes- Barre, PA 18701, Counsel for Appellant. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq., R. Andrew Santillo, Esq., Peter D. Winebrake, Esq., Winebrake & Santillo, 715 Twinning Road, Suite 211, Twinning Office Center, Dresher, PA 19025, Counsel for Appellee. FIFTH THIRD: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Gainey McKenna& Egleston: DUDENHOEFFER, ET AL. V. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, ET AL. Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-538-SSB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION TO: All Persons (EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS) WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN OR BENEFICIARIES (INCLUDING ALTERNATE PAYEES) OF THE FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 401K SAVINGS PLAN FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE FIFTH THIRD BANCORP MASTER PROFIT SHARING PLAN ("PLAN") AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JULY 19, 2007 AND January 15, 2016 (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WHOSE PLAN ACCOUNT INCLUDED INVESTMENTS IN FIFTH THIRD STOCK. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in a class action lawsuit against Fifth Third Bancorp ("Fifth Third" or the "Company"), and certain individuals, including former officers and directors of Fifth Third, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The lawsuit is referred to herein as the "Action." This Settlement will provide for a Settlement Amount of $6,000,000 (Six Million U.S. Dollars) to the Plan, minus Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of administering the Settlement, and Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, as well as certain structural changes (i.e., Plan amendments) to the Plan as described more fully in the Settlement Agreement, without any admission of wrongdoing or fault by any of the Defendants. The Settlement Amount will be allocated pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation to Plan participants who were invested in Fifth Third Stock in their Plan accounts during the Class Period. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio authorized this Notice. A final approval hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held on July 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, United States District Court Judge to determine, among other things (as set forth in the Parties' proposed Final Approval Order): (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be granted final approval; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and for Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs relating to their representation of the Settlement Class should be approved; and (4) whether the Action and the claims of the members of the Settlement Class against Defendants should be dismissed with a direction to the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment, finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of the Order as set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed with the Court. The Final Approval Hearing will be held at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Potter Stewart United States Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Room 810 or such other courtroom as the Court may designate. If you are a member of the Settlement Class as defined above, your rights may be affected by the proposed Settlement and release of Parties and claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants and their Immediate Family Members are excluded from the Settlement. You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement in this case, but you do have the right to object by writing to the Court. Any objection to the Settlement, must be filed with the clerk of the Court and served upon each of the following law firms no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2016, at the addresses listed below: CLERK Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division Potter Stewart United States Courthouse Rom 103 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 CLASS COUNSEL Edward W. Ciolko Mark K. Gyandoh KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Thomas J. McKenna Gregory M. Egleston GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 938-1300 Facsimile: (212) 938-0383 DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL James E. Burke KEATING MEUTHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East 4th Street Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6428 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 If the Settlement is approved by the Court and you are a member of the Settlement Class, you will receive any Settlement payment you are entitled to receive under the Settlement Agreement without having to file a claim. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and have not yet received the Class Notice, or if you want more information regarding anything in this Publication Notice, you may obtain such information by visiting www.FifthThirdERISAsettlement.com calling toll-free 855-979-7127, by writing to Class Counsel listed above or sending an email to FifthThirdERISAsettlement@ktmc.com DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE COMPANY, OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. DATED: May 19, 2016 By Order of the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio FINISH LINE: Settlement in "Arreola" Case Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge S. James Otero granted final approval of the class settlement and the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service payments in the case, HERIBERTO ARREOLA, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE FINISH LINE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00171-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal.), No Class Members objected to the Settlement. Rust Consulting is awarded up to $33,000 for their services as Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. Class Representative Heriberto Arreola is awarded $5,000 as a Class Representative service payment pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. Class Counsel is awarded $187,500 or 25% of the gross settlement sum, as attorneys' fees. Class Counsel is awarded $10,662.85 in litigation costs incurred in prosecuting this case. The proposed PAGA penalties of $5,000 ($3,750.00 to the LWDA and $1,250.00 to the Class) are approved. The case is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement and this Order. A copy of the Court's May 23 Order is available at https://is.gd/LELf8A from Leagle.com. The Finish Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J Witlin -- scott.witlin@BTLaw.com -- and Steve L Hernandez -- steve.hernandez@BTLaw.com -- at Barnes and Thornburg LLP. FIRST MERCURY: Appeals Panel Expresses Concern on Junk TCPA Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Herra and Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, report that a panel of state appellate justices could have simply found an insurer wasn't obligated to pay to cover a $4 million settlement reached to end a lawsuit brought by a suburban engineering firm that claimed it had received so-called "junk fax" advertisements. But the justices used the occasion to also send a message to the lawyers it says are responsible for a "proliferation" of potential junk class action lawsuits under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, brought in many cases, the justices said, only to help lawyers get paid. "We must express our concern with the policies implicated by the proliferation of TCPA class actions," the justices wrote. "These cases are not about how insureds face ruinous liability . . . they have everything to do with compensating the lawyers of the class." On May 18, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled on an appeal of Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 11-CH-28513. In this case, Rolling Meadows-based CE Design Ltd. had claimed First Mercury Insurance Company, of Southfield, Mich., owed it more than $4 million. CE Design had settled an earlier lawsuit against First Mercury's client Nationwide Security Services Inc., in which CE had claimed Schaumburg-based Nationwide had violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited junk faxes advertising its services. The lawsuit against Nationwide came as part of a litany of TCPA lawsuits brought over nearly a decade by CE Design through its attorney, Brian J. Wanca, of Rolling Meadows. According to Cook County court records and Chicago federal court records, engineering firm and Wanca partnered on more than 90 junk fax class action lawsuits filed in Cook and Lake counties, alleging TCPA violations against a number of companies. Illinois corporation records indicate Wanca also served as CE Design's registered corporate agent. Records indicate CE Design voluntarily dissolved in March 2016. John Pezl of Lake Zurich was most recently listed as CE Design's president. In the case referenced in the most recent state appellate decision, the settlement agreement between CE Design and Nationwide Security attempted to hold First Mercury Insurance responsible to pay $4 million, even though the insurer had not been party to the settlement and had opposed the offer. As part of the settlement, CE was assigned Nationwide's rights under the policy, and allowed to ask the courts to order First Mercury to fund the settlement. When CE attempted to collect, however, a Cook County judge sided with the insurer. The appellate justices also sided with First Mercury. In its analysis, the panel said each of the 3,671 fax recipients in the class was entitled to $500 damages under the TCPA. But since the total claims amount is over the $1 million advertising injury limit in the policy held by Nationwide, First Mercury is not obligated to indemnify its client, the justices said. Justice Terrence J. Lavin wrote the court's opinion, and Justice Mary Anne Mason and Justice James Fitzgerald Smith concurred. In its opinion, however, the justices included a section titled, "Policy Reasons Supporting Affirmance." In this case, damages were calculated by multiplying the number of faxes sent by the TCPA's statutory damages award of $500 per fax, plus an additional $500 per fax in punitive damages. But the attorneys were well aware, more than five years after the offending faxes were sent, that only a handful of people were likely to come forward and join the class, justices said. "Class attorneys, however, all too often aim to solidify a fund via the settlement negotiations in order to satisfy their hefty fee petition," they wrote. The justices suggested the courts hearing such class actions should insist lawyers go forward with the claims process with the caveat that allowed claims would be satisfied from insurance. After the claims deadline has passed, courts and insurers can better assess the insured's liability -- "a sum which would predictably be a fraction of the settlement amount," the justices wrote -- and the court can then turn its attention to attorney's fees. In the First Mercury case, the insurer arranged for independent counsel for Nationwide in the underlying lawsuit, expressing an opinion from the beginning that the damages CE was seeking were not covered under its policy. The policy has a $500 per claim deductible and a limit of $1 million in liability for property damage and $1 million for advertising injury. The policy did not cover punitive damages. However, the two parties to the lawsuit went on to settle for more than $4 million, as the TCPA allows penalties that can triple the statutory damages. The settlement expressly noted that the defendant could not pay $500 per fax and the only "meaningful source of recovery" was from First Mercury. First Mercury was represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Tressler LLP, of Chicago. FIRST NATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Bobbi Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 4:16- cv-00338-O (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is a collection agency specializing in the collection of older debt. Jarrett L. Ellzey Jr., Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY LLP Galleria Tower 1 2700 Post Oak Blvd Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com - and - Bryant A. Fitts, Esq. FITTS LAW FIRM PLLC 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 871-1670 Facsimile: (713) 583-1492 E-mail: bfitts@fittslawfirm.com - and - Mark A. Alexander, Esq. MARK A. ALEXANDER PC 5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: (972) 364-9700 Facsimile: (972) 239-2244 E-mail: mark@crb-law.com FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morris" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Florence Morris, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 3:16- cv-01139-BAS-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection firm in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria -------------------------------------------------------- FIRST SOURCE of Tonawanda, NY, is recalling the following items because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes: --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Fitness Mix with lot code BD 161021 --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Yogurt Fruit/Nut Mix with lot code BD 161261 --- Alpine Tub "Roasted & Salted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25oz with Best By 03-24-17 --- Alpine Tub "Roasted & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25oz with Best By 3-23-17, 3-30-17, 5-3-17 --- Wegmans square tub "Fitness Mix" 20oz with Best By 12-24-16 --- Wegmans square tub "Sunshine Cranberry Delight" 20oz with Best By 12/15/16, 1-7-17, 2-9-17 --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Sunshine Cranberry Delight with Lot Code BD 161021 and BD 161261 --- Flave Fitness Mix 8oz with Best By 4-20-17 and 05-02-17 --- Flave Tropical Trail Mix 8oz with Best By 4-20-17 --- Flave Oriental Mix 6oz with Best By 3-10-17 and 4-21-17 --- Flave Sunflower Seeds 7.5oz with Best By 4-20-17 --- Gonzo 2 Go "Sunshine Cranberry Delight" 4.5oz with Best By 2-10-17 --- Gonzo 2 Go "Fitness Mix" 5oz with Best By 1-7-17 --- Stewarts Sunshine Cranberry Delite 5oz with Best By 1-18-17 --- Tops square tub "Roasted & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25 with Best By 3-30-17, 5-3-17 --- Tops square tub "Roasted & Salted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25 with Best By 1-28-17 Listeria monocytogenes, is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled items were distributed in the following states via retail stores: IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, NJ, NY, PA,VA, WV & SC, between 3/11/2016 and 5/21/2016. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after we received notification from our sunflower kernel supplier SunOpta pertaining to positive Listeria monocytogenes results. Consumers who have purchased any of these items are urged to destroy the product. If customers have further distributed any of these items, please immediately contact your accounts, advise them of the recall situation, and have them return their outstanding recalled stocks to you and maintain and share your record of the destruction of these items. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1 (716) 389-0264, Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm, ET. FITBIT: Study Shows Gadget Heart Rate Readings Inaccurate --------------------------------------------------------- Simon Sharwood, writing for The Register, reports that scientists have tested a pair of wearable fitness gadgets from Fitbit and found they get heart rates wrong by as much as 25 beats per minute. The study was commissioned by law firm Lieff Cabraser, which is running a class action against Fitbit over inaccurate heart rate readings. The study didn't use a colossal sample -- just 43 people were tested -- and only tested subjects once. In those tests the subjects were hooked up to an electrocardiograph known to produce valid readings, then provided with a Fitbit Charge HR on one wrist and the Fitbit Surge on the other. Authors Edward Jo, PhD and Brett A. Dolezal, PhD did not place the same device on the dominant wrist, to avoid bias. Participants were then asked to undertake 65 minutes of exercise and once the numbers had been crunched the authors concluded that "the PurePulse(TM) technology embedded in the Fitbit optical sensors does not accurately record heart rate, and is particularly unreliable during moderate to high intensity exercise." The pair therefore conclude that FitBit kit has "significant limitations . . . for biometric monitoring during exercise . . . cannot be used to provide a meaningful estimate of a user's heart rate." The authors don't say why, only offering speculation that there's a problem with FitBit's algorithms rather than the photoplethysmography technology used to do the measurements. This study will scare the many athletes -- serious competitors and weekend warriors alike -- who aim to train at certain heart rates. If the devices over-report heart rates, users will have trained at lower heart rates than they wanted to achieve. If the devices under-report, users may be straining to reach heart rates beyond their optimal peak levels. Which can end badly. Either way, it's not hard to see why there's a class action in the works. Fitbit's been in touch, through its PT firm, with a statement that says, in part, that the study "lacks scientific rigor and is the product of flawed methodology . . . and was conducted with a consumer-grade electrocardiogram - not a true clinical device, as implied by the plaintiffs' lawyers." The statemetn also contend "there is no evidence the device used in the purported 'study' was tested for accuracy." Fitbit "stand[s] behind our heart-rate monitoring technology and all our products, and continue to believe the plaintiffs' allegations do not have any merit. We are vigorously defending against these claims, and will resist any attempts by the plaintiffs' lawyers to leverage a settlement with misleading tactics and false claims of scientific evidence." FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in "Daniel" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case MARGIE DANIEL, ROBERT McCABE, MARY HAUSER, DONNA GLASS, and ANDREA DUARTE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civ. No. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass, and Andrea Duarte are individuals who purchased new Ford Focus vehicles in California between 2005 and 2011. Plaintiffs allege that those vehicles have a rear suspension alignment/geometry defect that leads to premature tire wear, which in turn leads to safety hazards such as decreased control in handling, steering, and stability, as well as the threat of catastrophic tire failure. Plaintiffs brought claims for violation of the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790- 1795.8, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301-2312 and breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code section 2313. In an order dated June 7, 2013, the court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on all claims and entered final judgment in its favor. Plaintiffs successfully appealed the order and the Ninth Circuit reversed the court's decision on all claims. Having unsuccessfully defended judgment in its favor on appeal, Ford moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the Ninth Circuit did not examine the duty to disclose, actual damages, statutorily-required notice, statute of limitations, equitable restitution, and sufficiency of the evidence of tire wear. Hauser, Glass, and Duarte do not oppose entry of judgment in favor of Ford on all of their claims. Daniel opposes Ford's motion for summary judgment. Judge Shubb denied defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Daniel and granted as to all remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion for class certification within 30 days of the date the order is signed. A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated May 17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Xtx2g0from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by John B. Thomas -- jthomas@hicks- thomas.com -- Eric Grant -- grant@hicks-thomas.com -- at Hicks Thomas, LLP; James Allen Carney -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- at Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by David M George -- dgeorge@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett LLP Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Fred J. Fresard -- ffresard@dykema.com -- Tamara A. Bush -- tbush@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett LLP Ford Motor Company, a DelDefendant, represented by Dennis R. Kiker -- at LeClair Ryan Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janet L Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- John Mark Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Krista L Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC; Norman C. Hile -- nhile@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP FRONTIER COMMS: Customers Fight Bid to Arbitrate False Ad Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Eyre, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that Frontier Communications customers who've sued the company for falsely advertising Internet speeds are asking the West Virginia Supreme Court to allow the case to proceed. "We hope the Supreme Court will finally grant us our day in court, so we can get finally get West Virginia out of the digital dark ages," said Michael Sheridan, a Frontier customer in Greenbrier County suing the Internet provider. For 18 months, Frontier has argued that its customers agreed to "terms and conditions" that require the two sides to settle disputes through arbitration -- not in a court of law. "We strongly believe that arbitration provides for quick and fair resolution of consumer complaints, tailored to each consumer," Frontier spokesman Andy Malinoski said. But Frontier's customers allege the company "buried" the arbitration provisions on its website -- a site they never visited. Frontier also included the terms in a monthly bill, but in print so minuscule that nobody saw it, customers say. Frontier customers urged the Supreme Court to reject the company's efforts to dismiss the class-action lawsuit that alleges Frontier failed to provide the high-speed Internet services it advertises. In December, Lincoln Circuit Judge Jay Hoke rejected Frontier's push to toss the lawsuit and force customers to settle their disputes through arbitration -- a process that limits claims for damages to $10,000. Customers stand to gain significantly more in damages through a jury verdict or settlement. Frontier appealed Judge Hoke's decision to the Supreme Court, characterizing its arbitration terms as "friendly" to customers and saying the judge's ruling showed "hostility" toward such proceedings. "We believe the controlling decisions on this issue from the U.S Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia support Frontier's position in this matter," Mr. Malinoski said. In a response filed with the Supreme Court, Frontier customers argue they never agreed to arbitrate their disputes over Internet service. They never signed a contract with the company. They never agreed to Frontier's terms and conditions. "Frontier's position is that consumers are obliged to be on alert at all times -- diligently reviewing the fine print on each and every page of promotional material received -- for the possibility that they may be waiving their rights by doing nothing at all," Frontier's customers said in the legal brief. Frontier has asserted it repeatedly informed customers about the arbitration terms on monthly bills and on the company's website. Customers suing the company had a chance to cancel their Internet service but never did, according to Frontier. "In addition to the terms and conditions appearing on our website, we sent a printed hard copy of our terms and conditions to each of the plaintiffs with his or her bill," Mr. Malinoski said. "Also, a message printed directly on the bill itself notified them of the terms and conditions, including the consumer-friendly arbitration process." In October 2014, Frontier customers sued the company, alleging Frontier "throttles back" its Internet service and provides speeds slower than advertised. Frontier never notified customers about the practice, according to the complaint. Customers reiterated those complaints in their Supreme Court filing. "Frontier's practice of overcharging and simultaneously failing to provide the high-speed, broadband level of service it advertises has created high profits for Frontier but left West Virginia Internet users in the digital dark age," the legal brief states. Frontier has said that the handful of customers suing the company got the Internet service they paid for. The Hurricane law firm Klein, Sheridan & Glazer and the Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser are representing Frontier's disgruntled customers. FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Hojicha Tea Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Frontier Co-op is voluntarily recalling its Organic Hojicha Tea due to potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. To date, no illnesses have been associated with these products. The recalled products were sold nationwide between the dates of December 13, 2014 - April 21, 2016. A list of affected product lots is listed below. On foil bulk packages, the four-digit lot code will follow the item number (#2920) on the front label directly above the UPC code. Brand Item Affected UPC Size ----- Number Lots --- ---- ------ ------- Frontier 2920 4338 0-89836-02920-1 1 lb. Co-op 5096 (16 oz) 5191 5289 6042 The raw material received by Frontier Co-op, which tested positive for Salmonella is being recalled by our supplier. Given that Salmonella may be present, Frontier Co-op is immediately initiating this recall. Consumers should not consume these products and should either throw away any remaining products or return to the point of purchase for a refund. Please contact Frontier Co-op with any questions or to inquire about replacement or reimbursement at 1-800-669-3275 Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central time. Founded in 1976 and based in Norway, Iowa, Frontier Co-op offers a full line of natural and organic products under the Frontier Co- op, Simply Organic(R) and Aura Cacia(R) brands. Products include culinary herbs, spices and baking flavors; bulk herbs and spices; and natural and organic aromatherapy products. Frontier's goal is to provide consumers with the highest-quality organic and natural products while supporting and promoting social and environmental responsibility. For more information, visit Frontier Co-op's website at www.frontiercoop.comdisclaimer icon. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/eiuivY GENERAL MILLS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerios Labeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that General Mills can't duck the bulk of a class action claiming that the company sold Cheerios labeled as gluten-free that were not, due to a processing error at one facility, a federal judge in Sacramento has ruled. The case captioned, JACKLYN HADDIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.; GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.; GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-02625-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.). GENERAL MOTORS: Unveils Fuel Economy Claims Compensation Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reports that GM unveils plan to compensate owners on fuel economy claims, and is expected compensate about 130,000 individual U.S. SUV owners that had inflated fuel economy labels. On May 20 the Detroit automaker said it was temporarily halting sales of nearly 60,000 new 2016 U.S. SUVs as the vehicles' labels overstated their fuel efficiency. GM plans to compensate owners for the difference in miles per gallon, announcing the program in the coming week, said sources. Once the correct labels arrived at the dealership GM resumed sales on May 21. It is expected that GM will over a cash compensation program to address the additional costs of driving based on the lower that expected fuel economy. GM Canada is expected to offer a similar compensation program, though it is not clear how many owners are impacted. GM has sold about 170,000 2016 SUVs in the United States, with about 130,000 in retail sales which will qualify for the compensation program. The remaining vehicles were sold to rental car, commercial and fleet buyers, and how GM will address those owners is unclear. A GM spokesman declined to confirm the program. In a statement on May 18, GM said that there was a 1-2 miles per gallon overstatement that was the result of improper calculations. It said the inclusion of new emissions related hardware in the 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave SUVs require new emissions testing, though the fuel economy data from these tests were not captured in calculations made for EPA fuel economy labels. The discovery of the error was found as GM engineers were working on the 2017 model year labels. A Florida owner of a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse filed a class-action suit on May 17 in the U.S. District Court in Detroit against GM on behalf of owners who bought vehicles with overstated fuel economy ratings. On May 20, the Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman said it has asked GM "to provide all relevant information to the agency." The incident follows a multitude of issues in recent years involving the auto industry overstating vehicle fuel efficiency. Mitsubishi Motor Corp admitted in April to overstating the fuel economy of four car models sold in Japan. In 2014, the Korean carmaker Hyundai Motor Co and its affiliate Kia Motors Corp agreed to pay $350 million in penalties to the U.S. government for overstating fuel economy rating in about 1.2 million vehicles. In June 2014, Ford Motor Co lowered fuel economy ratings on six models, and agreed to reimburse owners for the difference. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Backlash Over Mileage Misstatements --------------------------------------------------------- Marc Stern, writing for Automotive News, reports that if there is one thing that is certain about General Motors' mileage faux pas - - the Monroney Misstep -- it is simply that the automaker's timing was pretty poor. Even though it may have been caused by a clerical error, its recent mileage misstatement comes at a time when everything that is said by an automaker is examined, re-examined, checked again and then re-checked. And, after all of that double-checking is completed, still no one believes the result. Can you blame people for having doubts about veracity? After all, in the last four years, there have been six major mileage restatements that have resulted or may result in at least $200 million in payments and penalties to consumers and the government. No one is likely to give GM a pass or the benefit of the doubt. The mileage misstatements have played out against a backdrop of the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal where the automaker admitted it cheated on emissions testing. The automaker implemented the cheating program when it found that its EA189 2.0-liter four- cylinder engine, couldn't pass the rigorous U.S. testing cycle. In order to pass, Volkswagen knowingly implemented the so-called "defeat switch" strategy where a piece of computer code was inserted into the engine management software stack. The routine turned on emissions equipment when the car's computer system sensed a test was taking place and turned it off afterward. In reality, the only time the vehicles honestly met U.S standards was when the cheating software kicked in. Otherwise -- nearly 100 percent of the time -- the engine operated in a mode that kept mileage and peformance up, while the emissions profile tanked. So, while General Motors has said that the whole bad mileage sticker issue was the result of a clerical or like error and while it has already agreed to pay aggrieved owners from $450 to $1,000, the public is looking at the automaker with a very jaundiced eye. Indeed, GM is even feeling the effects of one of its own major recalls -- the ignition switch issue -- where it was revealed that the automaker knew about the problem a full decade before a major recall effort was mounted. It was a decade in which that very problem caused at least 124 deaths and about 2,300 injuries. All of the foregoing has combined to yield an atmosphere of general consumer doubt that spreads beyond an individual carmaker. Now, when General Motors says that a clerical error caused the Monroney Misstep, people tend to take that explanation with a grain of salt. (GM's whole explanation says the clerical error occurred when engineers changed the pollution control hardware for the 2016 models and recalculated the ratings, those ratings never made it to the EPA or into GM's sales brochures and other marketing materials due to the miscue.) If things were normal, people would likely have taken GM's word at face value, said Automotive News on May 21. After all, most would reason, the automaker was seriously bruised by the ignition-switch recall campaign and it had nothing to gain by falsifying the mileage data. Indeed, it would stand to reason that GM would have even more reason to keep its house in order. GM says that it told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as soon as it discovered the error. And, with lightning-fast speed - - for the auto industry -- 10 days, the automaker rolled out its compensation plan. However, things are not normal in the auto business. The normal level of cynicism with which most people hold the industry has deepened to a high level of mistrust. People just cannot get away from the six major fuel restatements that have occurred in the last four years -- Hyundai-Kia (two names, one company), Ford (twice), Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi and GM - Dieselgate and even GM's ignition-switch recall. Each incident has combined to create a cloud over the industry and a climate of mistrust so that even if an automaker can prove itself blameless, there will still be lingering doubts. The social media reaction to GM's explanation ranged from a sarcasm to skepticism. The level of distrust that is being displayed is mirrored in a groundswell of discontent among owners of older crossovers -- Acadias, Enclaves and Traverses -- who are now questioning the mileage figures on their own vehicles. No less a publication that Consumer Reports has chimed in with an item that questions the mileage numbers of those old crossovers. The same report also called GM's explanation of its Monroney Misstep into question. "Whether there is a clerical error or deceit, the issue is where consumers are being told something that's wrong," Jake Fisher, the publication's director of testing, says. "It's not just fuel economy and emissions. What if there is a clerical error on safety? What if a vehicle didn't really pass a certain crash test? There needs to be trust." The latest major miscue from GM isn't expected to cost the automaker much. Wire service reports put the cost at $100 million, a slight amount when you are a business whose revenue runs into the multi-billions. In fact, GM says, the Monroney Misstep will not "materially impact our financial results." The comment came from the automaker on May 20. The plan will give 135,000 owners a choice, extended warranty or debit card. The card will carry from $450 to $900, depending on whether the vehicle was leased or purchased. No decision has been made yet on the 30,000 to 35,000 fleet sales. GM is still awaiting word from the EPA as to whether there will be a fine or not and one class-action lawsuit has been filed. GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Asian Salad Kits Due to Allergens ------------------------------------------------------ A precautionary recall of three cases (containing 6 salads each) of 6.25 ounce The Farmers Market Chopped Asian Salad Kit with Product Code G126B22 and Use-by Date of May 20, 2016 has been issued due to possible exposure to undeclared allergens (soy, almonds, wheat). The product, manufactured by Fresh Express, was marketed and distributed by Giant Eagle Inc. Giant Eagle has already retrieved all but three individual salad kit bowls and prevented them from being offered for sale. The three remaining salad kit bowls were distributed to a Giant Eagle store in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. No other Giant Eagle or Fresh Express salad products are included in this recall. No illnesses are reported. The precautionary recall was necessitated when it was discovered incorrect labels had been applied to a small quantity of the salad kits. In some individuals the consumption of an undisclosed allergen could be life-threatening. Fresh Express and Giant Eagle take all matters of food safety very seriously, including the issue of allergens. Fresh Express is coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding this isolated event. Consumers in possession of the recalled salad should discard it. A refund is available where purchased. With questions, consumers may contact the Fresh Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time or Giant Eagle Customer Care at (800) 553-2324 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. The Farmers Market Chopped Asian Salad Kit, 6.25 ounce bowl Product Code of G126B22 and Use-By Date of May 20 located on the bottom label of the package Distribution: Three individual salad kit bowls were distributed to Giant Eagle grocery store, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/evFH71 GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Pending ---------------------------------------------- Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still defends the Silverstein Litigation. The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. We believe the allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation." GRETNA, LA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Enforcement Ordinance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a class- action lawsuit filed against the city of Gretna and a traffic enforcement system claims that a particular ordinance is unlawful. Michael Brantley Jr. and Theodore Traigle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a suit against the city of Gretna and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. in the 24th Judicial District Court on April 22. According to the claim, the plaintiffs were made to pay fines in accordance with an ordinance created to enforce the punishment of traffic violations caught by cameras. The suit states that the ordinance is unlawful in its requirements and in direct contradiction to the due process outlined in Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution. The defendant is accused of unlawful enforcement of the ordinance. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount in damages and to enjoin the defendants in enforcing the ordinance and the collection of fines. They are represented by Gordon L. James, Robert M. Baldwin and G. Adam Cossey of Hudson, Potts and Bernstein LLP in Monroe. The case has been assigned to Division M Judge Henry G. Sullivan Jr. The 24th Judicial District Court Case number 760182 HICKORY HARVEST: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products -------------------------------------------------- Hickory Harvest Foods, under advice from its sunflower kernel supplier, SunOpta, is expanding their recall of a limited number of products that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. These recalled items are in addition to the items recalled on May 4, 2016. The additional products were packaged at, or distributed from Hickory Harvest between the dates of April 20, 2016 and May 18, 2016. Shipments were to the following states: AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, Ml, MO, NC, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, and VA. No illnesses have been reported to date, but in an abundance of caution Hickory Harvest is recalling all affected products. Recalled retail items were sold in packaged bags and deli tubs and are marked with Best By Dates located on the front or back of the packages. Listed below are details regarding the additional recalled items: Product Size UPC Best By Date Description ---- --- ------------ ----------- Big Y Cranberry Nut 20 oz 0-18894-00457-8 02/09/17 Trail Hickory Harvest 7 oz 0-36232-06136-6 02/04/17 Cranberry Fitness Car Cup Hickory Harvest 7 oz 0-36232-07716-9 02/03/17 Roasted Salted 02/05/17 Sunflower Kernel Car Cup Hickory Harvest 11 oz 0-36232-07702-2 05/02/17 Roasted Salted Sunflower Kernel 5.5 oz 8-55993-20018-6 04/20/17 Amish Farms Roasted Salted Sunflower Kernel Raylicious Roasted 1.5 oz 8-55291-00192-8 05/20/17 Salted Sunflower Kernels Liberty Roasted 3 oz 6-08819-35672-3 05/02/17 Salted Sunflower 05/21/17 Kernels 05/25/17 Sheetz Roasted 3.5 oz 7-59465-00784-9 04/20/17 Salted Sunflower 04/25/17 Kernels 05/02/17 05/03/17 Hickory Harvest 6 oz 0-36232-00511-7 01/20/17 Sweet and Salty 01/21/17 Trail Car Cup Previously recalled items from press release dated May 4, 2016: Product Size UPC Best By Date Description ---- --- ------------ ----------- Hickory Harvest 10 oz 0-36232-07703-9 11/18/16 Roasted Salted 01/07/17 Sunflower Kernel 01/08/17 Hickory Harvest 10 oz 0-36232-07707-9 11/16/16 Roasted No Salt 01/21/17 Sunflower Kernel Hickory Harvest 7 oz 0-36232-07716-9 11/25/16 Roasted Salted 12/29/16 Sunflower Kernel Hickory Harvest 11 oz 0-36232-07702-2 01/11/17 Roasted Salted Sunflower Kernel Hickory Harvest 5 oz 0-36232-07704-6 11/25/16 Roasted Salted 12/28/16 Sunflower Kernel 12/29/16 IM Good Roasted 1.6 oz 7-93724-80218-9 04/29/17 Salted Sunflower Kernel Sheetz Roasted Salted 3.5 oz 7-59465-00784-9 03/01/17 Sunflower Kernel Raylicious Roasted 1.5 oz 8-55291-00192-8 04/14/17 Salted Sunflower 04/15/17 Kernel Liberty Roasted 3 oz 6-08819-35672-3 04/16/17 Sunflower Kernel 04/29/17 Heinens Roasted 10 oz 0-36232-07703-9 12/28/16 Salted Sunflower Kernel Heinens Roasted No 10 oz 0-36232-07707-7 01/21/17 Salted Sunflower Kernel 12/15/16 Amish Farms Roasted 5.5 oz 8-55993-20018-6 02/25/17 Salted Sunflower Kernel Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who purchased these products may take them back to the store where they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers seeking information may email askus2@hickoryharvest.com or call 1-800-448-6887 Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time. Retailers and wholesale customers should check their inventories and shelves to confirm that none of the products are present or available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories. Please contact Hickory Harvest at askus2@hickoryharvest.com to arrange for disposal or return of the product. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Company provided the following statement: "We are dedicated to producing the highest quality and safest snacks for our customers, as their safety is our top priority. Therefore, we are following the advice of our supplier and issuing a voluntary recall on certain sunflower kernel products that are potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Fortunately, there have been no consumer illnesses reported. Hickory Harvest Foods is working with its customers and the FDA to ensure the products are removed from commerce as quickly as possible." Hickory Harvest Foods, Inc., The Good Snack People, offers the largest selection of healthy and salty snacks in a variety of packaging options. Hickory Harvest Foods sells wholesale product under its own brand, the I.M. Good Snacks brand as well as private brands to grocery stores/mass retail, convenience/travel stores, distributors, food manufacturers, gift companies and fundraising organizations. Located in Akron, Ohio since 1972, the company has a proud history of retaining long-time employees that are dedicated to producing the best quality in the industry. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/bpHAgC HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: In Class Action Settlement Talks ------------------------------------------------------ Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that property mogul Nic Georgiou and the executive of the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG) have started informal discussions regarding a potential settlement that would avert a drawn-out class action lawsuit. The first meeting was held in April in Mossel Bay, but no official proposal emerged. It has also become apparent that Elna Visagie and Herman Lombaard, two of the most hardworking and passionate advocates against Orthotouch and Georgiou in recent years, are now working for Orthotouch, apparently for monthly salaries as high as R100 000. From various communications with Ms. Visagie and Mr. Lombaard it is evident that they are also trying to facilitate a settlement as they are concerned that a drawn-out lawsuit would not be in the best interest of investors. Informal discussions Helgard Hancke, one of the representatives of HSAG, confirmed that Georgiou attended the Mossel Bay meeting without legal representation. Jacques Theron of Theron and Partners, the legal firm driving the class action, who was also present during this meeting, said another meeting was scheduled for this week. Both however emphasized that the negotiations are at a very early stage. Mr. Georgiou's response Mr. Georgiou refused to comment on these developments, citing Moneyweb's apparent bias against the company. "Due to the fact that your reporting has consistently been biased against us, we have long since taken the view that anything we comment on will only be used or abused in an endeavor to cause us damage." HMSHOST: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria --------------------------------------------------- HMSHost of Bethesda, Maryland is recalling multiple brands of trail mix, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The Cape Cod Cranberry Trail Mix, 7 oz., was sold under the brand names Fresh Attractions, 1897, Ciao, Farmers Market, Grounded In, La Tapenade, Marche, MKT, Pronto, PZA, The Local, and Urban Market in stores in the following markets: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. The trail mix has a UPC code of 2050000142000 and a use by date from 4/5/16 to 9/17/16. HMSHost was recently notified by one of its snack manufacturers, Woodstock Farms Manufacturing, that during their routine testing, the presence of Listeria monocytogenes was revealed in two lots of walnuts used in one of its trail mixes. To take every precaution, HMSHost has removed this product from stores and is initiating a recall of its 7 oz. Cape Cod Cranberry Trail Mix. The manufacturer has reported that there are no known illnesses to date from the ingredient in question; however, we ask that you do not consume this product. Consumers who wish to receive a refund for unused portions may return it to the store for a full refund or contact customerservice@hmshost.com or call 1-877-672-7467. Our phone lines are manned 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/NGNOyF HY-VEE: Recalls Fried Rice Products Due to Listeria --------------------------------------------------- Hy-Vee, Inc., based in West Des Moines, Iowa, is voluntarily recalling its frozen Hy-Vee Vegetable Fried Rice and frozen Hy-Vee Chicken Fried Rice products across its eight-state region due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with this product. The frozen Hy-Vee Vegetable Fried Rice product being recalled was sold in 1 lb. bags with the UPC number 000007545012530 and with a "use by" date of Nov. 5, 2017, or earlier. The frozen Hy-Vee Chicken Fried Rice product being recalled was sold in 20 oz. bags with the UPC number 0075450125290 and with a "use by" date of Nov. 5, 2017, or earlier. These products were sold at Hy-Vee stores in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin between July 24, 2014, and May 12, 2016. Out of an abundance of caution, Hy-Vee is recalling these two products from all of its stores. The potential for contamination was discovered after Ajinomoto Windsor, Hy-Vee's supplier, announced they were recalling specific frozen foods due to the potential for Listeria monocytogenes. No other Hy-Vee food items are impacted by this recall. Customers who purchased this product should discard it or return it to their local Hy-Vee store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Hy-Vee Customer Care representatives 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-772- 4098. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/USfpxb HY-VEE INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------ Hy-Vee, Inc., based in West Des Moines, Iowa, is voluntarily recalling six trail mix products across its eight-state region due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. The products include Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew Honey Crunch Trail Mix, Hy- Vee Dark Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix, Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix, Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix To Go, Hy-Vee Berry Trail Mix and Hy-Vee Santa Fe Trail Mix. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these products. Out of an abundance of caution, Hy-Vee is recalling the following products from all of its stores: --- Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew Honey Crunch Trail Mix - sold in 24 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450040586 and with a "best by" date of April 5, 2017 --- Hy-Vee Dark Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix - sold in 24 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450041354 and with a "best by" date of April 14, 2017 --- Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix - sold in 26 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450016796 and with a "best by" date of April 5, 2017, and April 15, 2017 --- Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix To Go - sold in 1.75 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450040739 and with a "best by" date of March 23, 2017 --- Hy-Vee Berry Trail Mix - sold in 7 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450040593 and with a "best by" date of March 19, 2017 --- Hy-Vee Santa Fe Trail Mix - sold in 6.5 oz. bags with the UPC number 75450041101 and with a "best by" date of March 31, 2017 The potential for contamination was discovered after Hy-Vee's supplier, SunOpta, announced they were recalling specific lots of sunflower kernels due to the potential for Listeria monocytogenes. The initial recall was limited to sunflower kernel products produced at SunOpta's Crookston, Minnesota, facility; however, the recall was recently expanded to all products produced at the facility between Feb. 20 and April 20. Customers who purchased this product should discard it or return it to their local Hy-Vee store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Hy-Vee Customer Care representatives 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-772- 4098. Hy-Vee, Inc. is an employee-owned corporation operating 240 retail stores across eight Midwestern states with sales of $9.3 billion annually. Hy-Vee ranks among the top 25 supermarket chains and the top 50 private companies in the United States. Supermarket News, the authoritative voice of the food industry, has honored the company with a Whole Health Enterprise Award for its leadership in providing services and programs that promote a healthy lifestyle. For more information, visit www.hy-vee.comdisclaimer icon. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/hLAsKf ILLINOIS: Mental Health Overhaul Begins Following Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Illinois' top corrections official says an overhaul has begun of prison mental health programs following a settlement in a class-action lawsuit. Illinois Department of Corrections Director John Baldwin tells The (Bloomington) Pantagraph he wants the state to be a national model. Mr. Baldwin says Gov. Bruce Rauner is committed to making funding available. The agreement in a 2007 class-action lawsuit calls for new treatment units at the Logan, Pontiac and Dixon prisons as well as in Joliet. The cost has been estimated at $90 million, including staffing. U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm approved the settlement earlier this month. Jennifer Vollen-Katz of the John Howard Association, a Chicago group monitoring Illinois prisons, says she is pleased with the priority Mr. Baldwin has placed on mental health since his appointment in August. INDIANA: AHA Taps Barnes & Thornburg to Defend Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ken de la Bastide, writing for the Herald Bulletin, reports that based on the advice of its insurance carrier, the Anderson Housing Authority has hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to represent it in a federal lawsuit. The Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana and two tenants filed a class-action lawsuit against AHA, citing sexual harassment, racial discrimination and health problems related to conditions that the management failed to address at Westvale Manor. Among the common complaints, according to the lawsuit: Water leaks, mold pests and inadequate maintenance of the apartments. AHA attorney Bill McCarty informed commission members on May 18 that Michael Palmer with Barnes & Thornburg has been retained to handle the case. Mr. McCarty said the case is in the preservation of documents phase, adding all the documents have been preserved. "He (Palmer) is working on a response and asked for additional time," Mr. McCarty said. "Another request for additional time would not be a surprise." Mr. McCarty said the insurance company requested that Mr. Palmer handle the case because of his past experience with public housing litigation. During the meeting, Charles Weatherly Jr., executive director of the AHA, said the city confirmed it will provide $42,000 for repairs to Westvale Manor. Weatherly said the funds will be used to make major repairs, in particular the roof. He said the housing authority will be reimbursed by the city through Community Development Block Grant funds. "We have to provide proof the work was done," he said. The work is expected to be started when $160,000 in capital improvement funds are received from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commission members were informed that 18 of the 134 units at Westvale Manor are currently vacant. Mr. Weatherly said 13 of the tenants were moved to the subsidized Section 8 housing program. AHA has also been approved for $25,000 to hire a housing counselor through CDBG funds. Mr. Weatherly said AHA has applied for a $250,000 HUD grant to fund the housing counselor position for three years. The grant would cover the cost of salaries and benefits. Mr. Weatherly said the counselor would help residents obtain available services in the community. INTERLINE BRANDS: Judge Trims "Ajose" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JACQUELINE D. AJOSE, KATHY SMITH, SHARON KURTZ, PATRICIA EVERETT, JAMES L. BOYLAND, AND KATHY DUTTON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Defendant, No. 3:14-cv-1707 (M.D. Tenn.) Interline Brands is a direct marketer and distributor of a broad line of products, including plumbing supplies. Interline does not manufacture the products it sells but instead uses third-party manufacturers to provide it with the products it distributes in the United States. Among the products distributed by Interline is a DuraPro brand toilet connector. Interline purchased the toilet connectors from China, first via third-party supplier Lynx, Ltd. and later, after 2005, via third-party supplier MTD (USA) Corp. (MTD). MTD manufactured the Toilet Connectors based on Interline's design specifications. The named plaintiffs Jaclyn Ajose of Pennsylvania, Kathy Smith of Colorado, Sharon Kurtz of Texas, Patricia Evett and Kathy Dutton of Arizona, and James L. Boyland of Florida, seek to represent themselves and a class of others who are similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that Interline distributed toilet connectors with uniformly defective plastic coupling nuts. Plaintiffs also allege that Interline knew of the defects in the toilet connectors yet failed to publicly disclose that the connectors carried a significant risk of causing catastrophic water damage to property. Plaintiffs brought seven causes of action. A Strict Liability- Design Defect and Failure to Warn claim (Count I), a Declaratory Judgment Act claim (Count II), a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim (Count III), a Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim (Count IV), an Unjust Enrichment claim (Count V), a Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act claim (Count VI) and a Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability claim (Count VII). They filed suit in August 2014 and amended their complaint in August of the following year. Interline made a request to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida but was denied. Interline seeks to dismiss the bulk of plaintiffs' claims, and alleges that the FAC only meets the pleading standard with respect to portions of Count I. Otherwise, Interline asserts, the rest of Count I and all of Counts II through VII must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Sharp granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' Strict Liability and Declaratory Judgment Act claims remain wholly intact. The FDUTPA claim will be dismissed as to all plaintiffs except plaintiff Boyland, whose FDUTPA claim survives. The CCPA and unjust cnrichment claims will be dismissed. The implied breach of warranty claims (Counts VI and VII) will be dismissed as to the Arizona and Florida plaintiffs, but will survive for the Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania plaintiffs. A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum dated May 17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BR5DMkfrom Leagle.com. Jacquelyn D. Ajose, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony D. Shapiro -- tony@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP; Charles J. Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- at Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.; Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Donald L. Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- Gerard A. Dever -- gdever@finekaplan.com -- at Fine, Kaplan & Black, P.C.; Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- at Greg Coleman Law; James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC Jacquelyn D. Ajose, represented by Jeniphr Breckenridge -- jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP Jacquelyn D. Ajose, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Todd A. Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio; Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- Simon B. Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.; Raina Borrelli -- rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Seamus T. Kelly -- seamusk@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC; Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- at Wexler Wallace LLP; Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Jeffrey L. Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C.; Joseph G. Sauder -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; Joseph B. Kenney -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- at McCune Wright LLP Interline Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by David O. Batista -- batistad@gtlaw.com -- Timothy A. Kolaya -- kolayat@gtlaw.com -- Hilarie Bass -- bassh@gtlaw.com -- Mark A. Salky -- salkym@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP; John Roy Tarpley -- jtarpley@lewisthomason.com -- at Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. JAKARTA: Governor Won't Hinder Luar Batang Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Destrianita Kusumastuti, writing for TEMPO.CO, reports that Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama has admitted he will not get in the way on Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Luar Batang residents's plan of filing a class action lawsuit on him (Ahok). However, Mr. Ahok hopes that the lawsuit would not hinder the development of Luar Batang. "Go ahead. If they want to file a class action lawsuit. But don't let the PAM [regional water company] case happened again. You filed a class action lawsuit that hindered development, the process took so long that halted the development. And if you lose, you won't get punished," Mr. Ahok said on May 23 at the City Hall. "It should be noted by the people, that your action will only hinder the development," he said. Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the defense lawyer of Luar Batang residents, said he will have a class action lawsuit prepared in a week's time against Jakarta administration and bring it to the State Administrative Court (PTUN). The lawsuit is against Jakarta administration that failed to issue either a decree or warrant of eviction in Luar Batang Village eviction. Yusril has accused Ahok of intentionally omitting the issuance of a decree to avoid a lawsuit as happened to Bidaracina residents. Even though he cannot file a lawsuit over the issuance of a warrant, the constitutional law expert considered that a class action can be filed against the Governor, based on the State Administrative Law. JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer "Ezersky" Denied ---------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. 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 the Supreme Court of Missouri has denied plaintiff's application to transfer the case, Daniel Ezersky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 14, 2013, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The petition alleged that Edward Jones breached its fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched through the use of an online life insurance needs calculator that plaintiff claims inflated the amount of insurance he needed. The plaintiff sought damages on behalf of Missouri residents who purchased certain life insurance products from Edward Jones between March of 2008 and the present, including: actual damages, or alternatively, judgment in an amount equal to profits gained from the sale of term, whole life or universal life insurance to plaintiff/damages class; punitive damages; injunctive relief; costs, including reasonable fees and expert witness expenses; and reasonable attorneys' fees. On August 18, 2014, Edward Jones filed a motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently granted by the Court. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed summary judgment on October 20, 2015. On January 26, 2016, the Supreme Court of Missouri denied the plaintiff's application to transfer the case. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a registered limited liability limited partnership organized under the Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., is a registered broker-dealer in the U.S. and one of Edward Jones' subsidiaries is a registered broker-dealer in Canada. JORGE GARCIA: Homeowners File Class Action Over Property Damage --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Mark A. Ticer on May 16 disclosed that thousands of Texas homeowners who have been victimized by severe weather may also be victims of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving door-to- door solicitors, public insurance adjusters and attorneys, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Dallas. The lawsuit claims that individuals, companies and law firms purportedly representing residents with property damage insurance claims are actually operating a pyramid scheme to collect unlawful and fraudulent fees that can make completing the repairs almost impossible. According to court documents, the scheme typically begins when a door-to-door solicitor working on behalf of a roofing contractor claims that his company can get the homeowner's insurance company to pay for property damage, such as a new roof. After the initial insurance payment arrives, the solicitor keeps the funds and brings in a so-called "public adjuster" to inspect the home and seek additional payment from the insurance company, charging a fee of 10 percent of the total claim plus other expenses. The solicitor also tells the homeowner that a lawyer must be hired to get still more payments from the insurance company, adding a 25 percent to 40 percent fee for any recovery. Having never met or even spoken with the homeowner, the attorney then files a lawsuit against the insurer without the homeowner's knowledge, agrees to a mediation, and settles the matter without the approval of or consultation with the homeowner. When a settlement check finally arrives, the payment often is not enough to pay for roof repairs because of deductions to cover the fees and expenses of the attorney, public adjuster and solicitor. "This is a very real and deceitful scheme that is carried out in this state every day by those who are supposed to be helping homeowners, not ripping them off," says attorney Mark Ticer, who represents Dallas resident Juan Guerra in the lawsuit. Mr. Guerra initially was approached in 2014 by a representative of Arlington-based roofing contractor Lampcorp, who said the company could handle his insurance claim for a new roof. Mr. Guerra then turned over the payment from his insurer to Lampcorp, which demanded that Mr. Guerra hire Arlington-based National Claims Negotiators LLC, a public adjusting firm, and the San Antonio law firm of Speights & Worrich to obtain additional payments from Mr. Guerra's insurer. Mr. Guerra still has not received the new roof he was initially promised by the solicitor, nor have the insurance proceeds taken by Lambcorp been returned to him. "This lawsuit is bringing to light an elaborate web of conspirators and con artists who are lining their pockets at the expense of innocent and unsuspecting homeowners, with a goal of bringing accountability, honesty and integrity back into the system," says attorney Van Shaw of the Law Offices of Van Shaw in Dallas, co-counsel for Mr. Guerra and the proposed class. Mr. Ticer and Mr. Shaw say the lawsuit also exposes a troubling increase in Texas of an illegal practice called barratry, which includes the improper solicitation of potential cases by individuals not associated with the lawyer handling the matter. "Such conduct is unfortunately becoming increasingly common, but Texas law provides victims of barratry a private right of action against the violating lawyers," says Mr. Ticer. The case is Guerra v. Jorge Garcia, Vivian Armas, et al., No. DC- 15-03338, in the 134th District Court in Dallas. The Law Office of Mark A. Ticer -- http://www.ticerlawfirm.com-- handles disputes with all types of insurance coverage, including employee benefits related to ERISA, medical insurance, liability insurance and homeowners coverage, as well as legal malpractice, expert witness testimony, and consumer law matters. JP MORGAN: "Friedman" Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York, granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case RICHARD FRIEDMAN and CARLA HIRSCHORN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LTD.; JOHN HOGAN and RICHARD CASSA, Defendants, No. 15-cv-5899 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.) Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschorn on behalf of investors in Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme brought a case against JP Morgan Chase & Co., JP Morgan Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd., and two JP Morgan employees, John Hogan and Richard Cassa. JP Morgan Chase is a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law with its principal place of business in New York. The other JP Morgan defendants are subsidiaries of JP Morgan Chase: (1) JP Morgan Chase Bank has its principal place of business in Ohio; (2) J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is organized under Delaware law and is the principal non-bank subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase; (3) J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. is organized under English law and is the investment banking arm of JP Morgan Chase in the United Kingdom. John Hogan is a JP Morgan employee who held several positions in which he oversaw the risk of Chase's Investment Bank's credit business, rising to the level of Chief Risk Officer and later Chairman of Risk for all JP Morgan Chase. Richard Cassa was the sponsor or Client Relationship Manager for one of the Madoff and BLMIS accounts from 1993 to March 2008 when he retired. Plaintiffs' class complaint allege that JP Morgan was aware, or should have been aware, that Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) were not conducting a legitimate investment advisory business because JP Morgan had access to BLMIS's bank accounts and would have realized that BLMIS was not using customer funds to execute trades. The plaintiffs filed the action in the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants were actively complicit in the illegal conduct of Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York on July 28, 2015. The defendants moved to dismiss all the claims. A copy of Judge Koeltl's opinion and order dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Ojwbi4from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Helen Davis Chaitman -- hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com -- Lance Gotthoffer -- lgotthoffer@chaitmanllp.com -- at Chaitman LLP; Julie Gorchkova -- Peter W. Smith -- Vincenzo Maurizio Mogavero -- vmogavero@bplegal.com -- at Becker & Poliakoff, LLP Defendants, represented by Alan S. Naar -- anaar@greenbaumlaw.com -- at GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP; John F Savarese -- JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- Emil A. Kleinhaus -- EAKleinhaus@WLRK.com -- Stephen R. DiPrima -- SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz KROGER CO: Recalls Organic Mixed Vegetables Due to Listeria ----------------------------------------------------------- The Kroger Co.(NYSE: KR) said it is recalling Simple Truth Organic Mixed Vegetables because a supplier indicated the product may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which could result in severe illness to those individuals who may consume this product. No customer illnesses have been reported to date. Stores operating under the following names are included in this recall: Kroger, Jay-C, Dillons, Bakers, Gerbes, King Soopers, City Market, Fry's, Fred Meyer, Ralphs, QFC and Smith's. This product was sold in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Kroger has removed this item from store shelves and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products through register receipt tape messages and phone calls. Kroger is recalling the following items: Product UPC Codes Size ------- --- ----- ---- Simple Truth 0001111036738 Sell By Date: 10 oz. Organic Mixed December 2016 Vegetables and Jan 2017 Customers who have purchased the above product should not consume it and should return them to a store for a full refund or replacement. Customers who have questions may contact Kroger at 1-800-KROGERS, Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 12:00 am EDT and Saturday through Sunday 8:00 am to 9:00 pm EST. Every day, the Kroger Family of Companies makes a difference in the lives of eight and a half million customers and 431,000 associates who shop or serve in 2,778 retail food stores under a variety of local banner namesdisclaimer icon in 35 states and the District of Columbia. Kroger and its subsidiaries operate an expanding ClickList offering -- a personalized, order online, pick up at the store service -- in addition to our 2,231 pharmacies, 784 convenience stores, 323 fine jewelry stores, 1,387 supermarket fuel centers and 38 food production plants in the United States. Kroger is recognized as one of America's most generous companies for its support of more than 100 Feeding America food bank partners, breast cancer research and awareness, the military and their families, and more than 145,000 community organizations including schools. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/1sivvD LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Settlement Has Final Okay --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL GARCIA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 09-8943-DMG (SHx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of a class action settlement agreement with the Los Angeles Unified School District and motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses related to class settlement. Judge Gee found the class settlement agreement with Los Angeles Unified School District is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects. The judge also granted the class counsel an award of fees and expenses of $184,000 as compensation for their work on the lawsuit and as provided for in the settlement agreement with the Los Angeles Unified School District. A full-text copy of Judge Gee's May 20, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/a9S0fz from Leagle.com. Michael Garcia, represented by Daniel Mumford Perry -- dperry@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP, Delilah G Vinzon -- dvinzon@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley And McCloy, Linda S Dakin-Grimm -- ldakin-grimm@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley and McCloy LLP & Anna Mercedes Rivera, Disability Rights Legal Center. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Leroy Baca, The County of Los Angeles, represented by Justin W Clark -- jclark@lbaclaw.com -- Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC & Paul B Beach -- pbeach@lbaclaw.com -- Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC. Los Angeles County Office of Education, represented by Adam Jason Newman -- anewman@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Carlos M Gonzalez -- cgonzalez@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Karen Elaine Gilyard -- kgilyard@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PC, Marlon C Wadlington -- mwadlington@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo, Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education & Jennifer Anne Williams, Los Angeles County Office of Education. Darlene P. Robles, represented by Adam Jason Newman, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Carlos M Gonzalez, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Karen Elaine Gilyard, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PC, Marlon C Wadlington, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo & Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education. Ramon C. Cortines, Los Angeles Unified School District, represented by Barrett K Green -- bgreen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Daniel L Gonzalez -- dlgonzalez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Diane H Pappas, Los Angeles Unified School District, Donald A Erwin, Los Angeles Unified School District & Mampre R Pomakian, Los Angeles Unified School District. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, Barbara Nakaoka, represented by Jack Byron Clarke, Jr. -- jack.clarke@bbklaw.com -- Best Best and Krieger. The California Department of Education, Defendant, represented by Ismael A Castro, Office of Attorney General of California & Julie Weng-Gutierrez, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General. Jack O'Connell, Defendant, represented by Ismael A Castro, Office of Attorney General of California, Glenda N Reager, CAAG & Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Office of the Attorney General. LYFT INC: Faces "Zamora" Class Suit in N. District California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lyft, Inc. The case is captioned Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-02558-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2016). Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Frozen Yellow Cut Corn Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ As part of the CRF Frozen Foods recall, McCall Farms Incorporated is notifying consumers that it is recalling Piggly Wiggly brand frozen Yellow Cut Corn due to the potential risk that it may contain Listeria monocytogenes. McCall Farms was notified by its supplier, CRF Frozen Foods, of this potential contamination. No other McCall Farms products have been affected by this recall. Listeria monocytongenes is an organism which can cause mild to severe illness and sometimes be fatal to persons who consume contaminated food. People at greatest risk are newborn infants, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headaches, abdominal pain, stiffness and nausea, Listeria infections can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Further information about the CRF Frozen Foods recall can be found on the FDA website at: http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm499406.htm Piggly Wiggly has been notified of this issue and has removed all potentially affected products from its stores. The recall applies to: --- Piggly Wiggly brand Frozen Yellow Cut Corn in a 2 lb bag UPC number: 4129075181 Lot Code: CORN0J14FXA In the event a consumer has this product, they are urged not to consume it and to dispose of it properly. McCall Farms takes food safety very seriously and apologizes for any concern and inconvenience that this incident may have caused. For additional information contact McCall Farms consumer affairs line at: 1-800-277-2012 from 8am - 5pm Eastern. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/aur5uX MDL 2159: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Moved to July 8 -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles Breyer entered a stipulation extending plaintiff's opposition as well as the hearing date on defendant's motion to decertify. AutoZone, Inc. filed a Motion to Decertify on May 13, 2016. The Plaintiffs' Opposition was due on May 27, 2016, however, the deposition of Ali Saad, Defendant's rebuttal witness, was not set until May 27, and it is Plaintiffs' position that the deposition of Dr. Saad is necessary to properly oppose Defendant's Motion to Decertify. The parties agree that: a. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their Opposition by June 10, 2016; b. Defendant shall file and serve its reply brief by June 20, 2016; and c. The hearing date on Defendant's Motion, currently on calendar for June 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., is vacated and reset to July 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Stipulation is available at https://is.gd/QP15Xg from Leagle.com. Jimmy Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr. -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Daniela Saspe -- Daniela.Saspe@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Katherine Ward Kehr -- katherine.kehr@capstonelawyers.com -- Marc Primo, Initiative Legal Group APC -- MPrimo@InitiativeLegal.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC, Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Stan Karas -- Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Ellison is also represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Thierman Buck, LLP 7287 Lakeside Dr. Reno, NV 89511-76520 Tel: 775-284-1500 1-877-99LABOR Fax: 775-703-5027 Silvia Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP; and: Aldon Louis Bolanos, Esq. The Law Office of Aldon Bolanos 700 E St Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 446-2800 Haydee Escalante, Plaintiff, represented by: Gregg Lander, Esq. Kevin Todd Barnes, Esq. Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614 Tel: 323-302-9675 Fax: 323-549-0101 - and - Giuseppe Joseph Antonelli, Esq. Janelle Christine Carney, Esq. Law Office of Joseph Antonelli 14758 Pipeline Ave. Suite E, 2nd Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Tel: 909-393-0223 E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com Lynnetta Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by: Morris Nazarian, Esq. Law Offices of Morris Nazarian 1875 Century Park E #1790 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 877-225-4529 Mark Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Christopher Richard Pantel, Esq. Joseph Steven Hoff, Esq. Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich 1875 Century Park E # 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-286-0246 - and - Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq. Selman Breitman, LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310-445-0800 Drake Price, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Christina Marie Nordsten -- cnordsten@harrisandruble.com -- David Covington Garrett -- dgarrett@harrisandruble.com -- and Priya Mohan -- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- at Harris and Ruble. Autozone, Inc. (Ellison and Doland matters) is represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com giskander@littler.com jmann@littler.com - and - Alison J. Cubre, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: acubre@littler.com Autozone, Inc. (Ellison matter only) is represented by: Michael A. Hoffman, Esq. Amy C. Hirsh, Esq. Ronald D. Arena, Esq. ARENA HOFFMAN, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1414 E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com MDL 2551: Court Says NHL's Bid to Dismiss Injury Suit "Premature" ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case entitled In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM) (D. Minn.) The National Hockey League (NHL) is an unincorporated association that operates the major professional hockey league in North America and that consists of separately-owned member teams in various States and Canada. Plaintiffs are retired NHL players who allege that the NHL is responsible for the pathological and debilitating effects of brain injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts sustained during their professional careers. According to plaintiffs, former NHL players signed up to play hockey knowing that they might get injured and dinged, but they did not sign up for avoidable brain damage. Plaintiffs allege that, unbeknownst to them, decades' worth of scientific evidence links brain trauma to long-term neurological problems, and that NHL knew or should have known of the evidence but did not sufficiently protect the players or inform them of the dangers of repeated brain trauma. Various submissions of the parties were filed under seal. The NHL filed a motion to dismiss master complaint based on Labor Law Preemption, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). NHL also filed a motion to stay further discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss master complaint. Judge Nelson denied defendant's motion to dismiss as it is premature and denied defendant's motion to stay as moot. The parties must show cause ten days from the date of the order why the order should not be unsealed, and to specify any portion warranting redaction. A copy of Judge Nelson's memorandum opinion and order dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jWcZR8from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley C Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Brian C Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Charles S Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- David M Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Hart L Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed PLLP; Janine D Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Kathleen L Douglas -- kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Stuart A Davidson, -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- William N. Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- at SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by J Scott Andresen -- sandresen@bassford.com -- Jeffrey D. Klobucar -- jklobucar@bassford.com -- Lewis A Remele, Jr. -- lremele@bassford.com -- at Bassford Remele, PA Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- Mark S Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com -- at Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC; Bryan L Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Christopher P Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- Jeffrey D Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- at Chestnut Cambronne, PA; Daniel E Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- David A Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Joshua J Rissman -- jrissman@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek PLLC; David I Levine -- at The Levine Law Firm; James W Anderson -- janderson@heinsmills.com -- Vincent J Esades -- vesades@heinsmills.com -- at Heins Mills & Olson, PLC; Katelyn I Geoffrion -- Thomas A Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- William T Gibbs -- WTG@CorboyDemetrio.com -- at Corboy & Demetrio; Michael R Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC; Robert K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP; Thomas Joseph Byrne -- tbyrne@nbolaw.com -- at Namanny, Byrne & Owens, APC; Wm Dane DeKrey -- Dane.DeKrey@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed, LLP National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Daniel J Connolly -- daniel.connolly@FaegreBD.com -- Joseph M Price -- joseph.price@FaegreBD.com -- Linda S Svitak -- linda.svitak@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Adam M. Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- Joseph Baumgarten -- jbaumgarten@proskauer.com -- at PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP; Geoffrey M. Wyatt -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- James A. Keyte -- james.keyte@skadden.com -- Jessica D Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- John Herbert Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Matthew Michael Martino -- matthew.martino@skadden.com -- Matthew Stein -- Michael H Menitove -- michael.menitove@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP The Chubb Corporation, Respondent, represented by Peter H Walsh -- peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP. CTV and Dennis Lang, Movants, represented by Mark R Anfinson -- at Anfinson Law Office MDL 2583: Judge Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE: THE HOME DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL Docket No. 2583, No. 1:14-md-2583-TWT (N.D. Ga.) Between April 2014 and September 2014, The Home Depot, Inc. (Home Depot), was the subject of one of the largest retail data breaches in history. Hackers stole the personal and financial information of approximately 56 million Home Depot customers across the country, sold the information on the internet to thieves who made large numbers of fraudulent transactions on credit and debit cards issued to Home Depot customers. Between September 1, 2014, and September 7, 2014, the credit and debit card information of the Home Depot's customers was made available for sale on a black- market website, Rescator.cc. The plaintiffs are a putative class of financial institutions that issued and owned payment cards compromised by the data breach, as well as associations of credit unions whose members have been damaged by the data breach. The putative financial institution class alleges that it has been damaged by having to reimburse customers for the fraud losses suffered due to the data breach as well as by other costs such as having to reissue payment cards. The putative class brings claims for negligence and negligence per se, as well as violation of eight state-specific consumer protection statutes. The putative class also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. The association plaintiffs do not sue as a class. They seek only equitable relief. Home Depot moves to dismiss all the claims by both the putative class and the association plaintiffs. Judge Thrash granted in part and denied in part the financial institution plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint. A copy of Judge Thrash's opinion and order dated May 17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/p1HSDVfrom Leagle.com. In Re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, represented by Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC Northeastern Engineers Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- W. Pitts Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC; Kent M. Williams -- at Williams Law Firm; Michael E. Jacobs -- at Michael E. Jacobs Law & Consulting LLC; Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. -- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- at Kirby McInerney LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP Pittsfield Cooperative Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen -- cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP Phenix-Girard Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; James Benjamin Finley -- BFinley@TheFinleyFirm.com -- MaryBeth Vassil Gibson -- MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com -- at The Finley Firm, P.C.; Jere L. Beasley -- jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- Larry Apaul Golston, Jr. -- larry.golston@beasleyallen.com -- W. Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Andrew E. Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles; John Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC Kelsey O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented John Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- Roy E. Barnes -- roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC; Gregg Michael Barbakoff -- Gregory W. Jones -- Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- at Siprut, PC First Financial Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen -- cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP First Choice Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen -- cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP; Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Kristen G. Marttila -- kgmarttila@locklaw.com -- Richard A. Lockridge -- ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen Southern Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- W. Pitts Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Eric H. Zagrans -- eric@zagrans.com -- at Zagrans Law Firm, LLC; James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Swathi Bojedla -- sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- at Hausfeld, LLP Gary Lowenthal, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- Roy E. Barnes -- roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC; Darren W. Penn -- darren@hpllegal.com -- James M. Evangelista -- jim@hpllegal.com -- Jeffrey R. Harris -- jeff@hpllegal.com -- David James Worley -- david@hpllegal.com -- at Harris Penn Lowry LLP; Gary S. Graifman -- Robert A. Lubitz -- Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.; Howard Theodore Longman -- hlongman@ssbny.com -- Jason Robert D'Agnenica -- jasondag@ssbny.com -- Patrick Slyne -- pkslyne@ssbny.com -- at Stull Stull & Brody; Sara Saffran, Barbara Saffran, Robert Vandertoorn, Douglas Hinton, Plaintiffs, represented by John Raymond Bevis --bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- Roy E. Barnes -- roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC; Laurence Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm; Lauren S. Antonino -- at The Antonino Firm, LLC Profinium, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Leslie J. Bryan -- lbryan@dsckd.com -- Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. -- edoffermyre@dsckd.com -- Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP Salisbury Bank and Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- W. Pitts Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC; David R. Scott -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Stephen J. Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com -- Erin Green Comite -- ecomite@scott- scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP American Bank of Commerce, KC Police Credit Union and Suncoast Credit Union, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; John E. Suthers -- jes@sutherslaw.com -- at Suthers Law Firm; Richard L. Coffman -- rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com -- at Coffman Law Firm Firefighters Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Joseph C. Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Patrick T. Egan, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, pro hac vice,Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Vince Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Jason R. Doss, The Doss Firm, LLC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Katrina A. Carroll, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC, Kyle A. Shamberg, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Kleinbank, Plaintiff, represented by Brian M. Sund, Morrison Sund PLLC, David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C., Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Jackson D. Bigham, Morrison Sund PLLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C.,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Michele Jhingoor, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow, Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M. Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Bruce Holdridge, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow, Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M. Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Scott McGiffid, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow, Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M. Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. James M. Burden, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow, Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M. Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Edda Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory W. Jones, Siprut, PC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut, PC, Katrina A. Carroll, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC, Kyle A. Shamberg, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC, Rachel Soffin, Morgan & Morgan, PA & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, David R. Scott, Scott & Scott, LLC, pro hac vice, E. Kirk Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Stephen J. Teti, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC,Erin Green Comite, Scott & Scott, LLC, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Amalgamated Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, pro hac vice, Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP, Sally M. Handmaker, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP & Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC. Animas Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice,Jamisen Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Claude Garner, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, Todd L. Lord, Law Office of Todd L. Lord, William Gregory Dobson, Lober, Dobson & Desai, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Arthur M. Murray, Murray Law Firm, Korey A. Nelson, Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Murray Law Firm, Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC,Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Walid Khalaf, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Jasmin Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Steve O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Michael J Marko, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Luis Araujo, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Kitaisha Araujo, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Gary Gilchrist, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Darren T. Kaplan, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John Austin Moore, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Travis Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Darren T. Kaplan, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John Austin Moore, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Allen Mazerolle, Plaintiff, represented by David Andrew Bain, Law Offices of David A. Bain, LLC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Kenneth G. Gilman, Gilman Law, LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Cattaraugus County School Employees Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., pro hac vice,W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Alexandra O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Jason O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Mary Gorman, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Mary Hope Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Todd Burris, Plaintiff, represented by Bartley K. Hagerman, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Erik David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC,John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, M. Austin Mehr, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC,Philip G. Fairbanks, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Jeffrey Hartman, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Tiffany M. Yiatras, Carey & Danis & Lowe & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. First National Bank, USA, Plaintiff, represented byAlexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Charles E. Chorman, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Shonna Earls, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard, Girard & Green, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Jennifer Lynn McIntosh, Girard Gibbs, LLP,John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Linh G. Vuong, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Matthew B. George, Girard Gibbs, LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. John Holt, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard, Girard & Green, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Jennifer Lynn McIntosh, Girard Gibbs, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Linh G. Vuong, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Matthew B. George, Girard Gibbs, LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Joseph Moran, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Daniel Durgin, Plaintiff, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law Office, LLP, pro hac vice, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Preston W. Leonard, Leonard Law Office, PC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC. Sound Community Bank, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, David Slade, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Deborah M. Nelson, Nelson Boyd, PLLC, James Allen Carney, Jr., Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Jeffrey D. Boyd, Nelson Boyd, PLLC,Joseph Hank Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Hudson City Savings Bank, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Francis J. Rondoni, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, pro hac vice, Jamisen Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, pro hac vice,Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. ANECA Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented byAlexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Francis J. Rondoni, Chestnut Cambronne PA, W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. Pamela Lee, Rebecca McGehee, William Lambert, Ronald Castleberry, Brenda Blough, Sandra Sowell, Catherine Adams, Katherine Holmes, Samuel Welch, Glenda Fuller, Kent Coulson, Lawrence Elledge, Brandyon Brantley, Matthew Forrester, David Erisman, Royce Kitchens, Brion Reilly, Larry Flores, Ronald Levene, Nathanial Newton, Marilyn Geller, Gilda Wynne, Mario Tolliver, Joshua Michener, Richard Bergeron, Kristine Larson, Nicholas Hott, Sandra McQuiag, Doug Travers, John Simon, Inocencio Valencia, Laureen Anyon, Kelli LoBello, Raina Rothbaum, Linda Werak, Ivonda Washington, Pauline Cuff, Danny Champion, Scott Pelky, James Hansen, Michael Snow, Sandra Smith, Julian Metter, Stephen Sadler, Carlton Smith, Alma Pineda, Paula Ridenti, Mary Stenart, DeAnn Feiselman, Scott Ferguson, Dennis Borrell, Kim Barrett, Lindsay Wirth, Martha Brantley, Bridgette Moody, Plaintiffs, represented by John Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP. The Home Depot, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cari K. Dawson -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- Kristine McAlister Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP; Catherine Elizabeth Murillo -- emurillo@burnslev.com -- Robert D. Friedman - - rfriedman@burnslev.com -- at Burns & Levinson, LLP; Cheryl A. Sabnis -- csabnis@kslaw.com -- James Andrew Pratt -- apratt@kslaw.com -- Kevin M. Dinan -- kdinan@kslaw.com -- Phyllis Buchen Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- Sidney Stewart Haskins, II - - shaskins@kslaw.com -- L. Joseph Loveland, Jr. -- jloveland@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP; Daniel E. Danford -- ddanford@stites.com -- at Stites & Harbison PLLC The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Cari K. Dawson -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- Kristine McAlister Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- James Charles Grant -- jim.grant@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP; Cheryl A. Sabnis -- csabnis@kslaw.com -- Kevin M. Dinan -- kdinan@kslaw.com -- Phyllis Buchen Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- L. Joseph Loveland, Jr. -- jloveland@kslaw.com -- Paul Allan Straus -- pstraus@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding, LLP; Alfred J. Saikali -- asaikali@shb.com -- Daniel Brandon Rogers -- drogers@shb.com -- Eileen Tilghman Moss -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon; Andrew J. Knight, II -- ajknight@mppkj.com -- Charles M. Trippe, Jr. -- cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- Moseley, Pritchard, Parrish, Kinght & Jones; Carmelite M. Bertaut -- cbertaut@stonepigman.com -- at Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC; George Robert Dougherty -- at Grippo & Elden; Russell K. Scott -- rks@greensfelder.com -- at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.; Vickie E. Turner -- at Wilson Turner Kosmo, LLP MDL 2641: "Fraser-Johnson" Suit Remanded to Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Campbell granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates to: Bianca Fraser-Johnson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 2641, No. CV-16-00336-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.). The case shall be remanded to Delaware's New Castle County Superior Court. A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's May 23, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/griLvJ from Leagle.com. On September 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the action against the defendants in Delaware's New Castle County Superior Court. On October 23, 2015, the defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively "Bard") removed the case to federal court in the District of Delaware. On October 29, 2015, Bard requested an order severing the plaintiffs' claims against it from claims against the nondiverse defendants, and remanding the claims against the nondiverse defendants to Delaware state court. On February 4, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the plaintiffs' case from the District of Delaware to the District of Arizona for inclusion in the multi-district litigation. On March 12, 2016, the plaintiffs' filed their motion to remand the case to Delaware state court. Bianca Fraser-Johnson, Michael Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by John A Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Richard A Zappa, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Neilli M Walsh, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP & Timothy E Lengkeek, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP. C R Bard Incorporated, Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, Defendants, represented by Diana Rabeh -- drabeh@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. Christiana Care Health Services Incorporated, Christiana Care Health Systems Incorporated, Thomas Bauer, Cynthia Heldt, Defendants, represented by John D Balaguer -- balaguerj@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams & Christine Kane -- kanec@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams. MDL 2641: "Wolfe" Suit Remanded to Mahoning County -------------------------------------------------- Ronald Wolfe, Plaintiff, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-16-00786-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), is remanded to the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The case was previously consolidated in the matter, IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2641. A copy of the Court's May 23 Order is available at https://is.gd/LQM4Fp from Leagle.com. MEDICAL RECORDS: Court Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Kreher and Frank P. Trapani, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, report that in Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu v. Medical Records Online, -- A.3d --, 2016 (Apr. 22, 2016), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division refused to enforce an arbitration clause and class action waiver for lack of consideration where one party to the purported agreement merely agreed to comply with a pre-existing legal duty. This article discusses the decision and its implications. Facts of the Case Under federal and New Jersey law, patients have a right to inspect and obtain copies of their medical records. Any fee assessed by a medical provider for providing the records must be based on the provider's actual cost of producing the records. The plaintiff in Bernetich was a New Jersey plaintiff-side personal injury law firm that requested the medical records of one of its clients. In response to the request, Medical Records Online (MRO) -- which processes medical records requests on behalf of medical providers -- sent Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu an invoice for $204.19. The invoice stated that (1) pre-payment of the full amount was required before it would release the records; (2) all disputes related to the production of the records must be resolved by arbitration; and (3) any arbitration must be brought on an individual basis, rather than as a class action. The invoice also stated that the recipient should contact MRO if it had any questions regarding the invoice. Bernetich Hatzell paid the invoice, and then filed a proposed class action against MRO, alleging that the amounts it charged exceeded its actual costs of the produced records. MRO moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in its invoice. The trial court denied MRO's motion on the ground that the invoice did not comply with the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, 219 N.J. 430 (2014), which requires arbitration clauses to put plaintiffs on notice, with sufficient clarity and prominence, that they are waiving their right to proceed in court. MRO appealed the trial court's decision. Appellate Division's Ruling The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's ruling, but on different grounds. First, the Appellate Division rejected MRO's contention that providing the medical records constituted sufficient consideration to make the arbitration agreement in its invoice enforceable. As the Appellate Division explained, MRO had a pre-existing legal duty to provide the requested medical records, and merely complying with a pre-existing legal duty does not qualify as consideration sufficient to support an enforceable contract. Because MRO did nothing other than comply with a pre- existing legal duty, there was no consideration to support the arbitration clause MRO included in its invoice, rendering it unenforceable. Second, the Appellate Division rejected MRO's alternative argument that Bernetich Hatzell had surrendered its right to contest the arbitration clause by failing to object to it prior to paying the invoice. A waiver, the court explained, requires a voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Because MRO demanded payment before it would release the records, which Bernetich Hatzell's client had a legal right to obtain, "there was nothing 'voluntary'" about the firm's decision to pay for the records. Implications Mandatory arbitration clauses with class action waivers are becoming commonplace, and the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a willingness to enforce them, even where it would be economically infeasible to pursue a claim on an individual basis. The Bernetich decision, however, highlights one way that arbitration clauses (and class action waivers) can be challenged. It is a bedrock principle of contract law that parties must exchange consideration to create an enforceable contract. Based on the Bernetich decision, complying with a pre-existing legal duty may not be sufficient to create that consideration. Thus, plaintiffs' counsel should examine whether any arbitration agreement in their case was supported by adequate consideration or was, instead, imposed by a defendant that was merely complying with one of its pre-existing duties. Conversely, businesses and employers that are seeking to rely on arbitration clauses should ensure that they are providing sufficient consideration to support them, rather than merely doing what the law already requires them to do. MONTERO FARMS: Recalls Orange Habanero Peppers Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Montero Farms of McAllen, Texas is recalling Orange Habanero Peppers, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Orange Habanero Peppers were shipped to Indianapolis, Indiana and to McAllen, Texas from April 28 2016 to present. The product comes in 8 pound cardboard boxes marked with lot #41142-41143 on the top. In total 154 boxes are being recalled. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by the FDA. Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the company continue their investigation as to the source of the problem. Consumers who have purchased any Orange Habanero Peppers from the lots #41142-41143 are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (956) 686-8959 Monday thru Friday between 9am to 7pm central time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/HNOJZG NAPLES, FL: Faces Age, Sex Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a federal class action lawsuit says the City of Naples used an unwritten policy of targeting older female workers for termination when the city discriminated against and fired three veteran female employees. The Naples Daily News reports Susan Fabbrini, Karen Kateley and Jill Orstad claim they were victims of a years-old practice at the city to fire older female employees under the framework of "reorganization" or a "reduction of force." The lawsuit claims after Ms. Fabbrini and Ms. Kateley were abruptly fired from their lengthy tenures with the city's building department last year, the department made new hires of younger, less-qualified workers. City officials declined to discuss the details of the case and will have 20 days to respond. NAT'L BROADCASTING: Biggest Loser Contestants Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Callahan and Danika Fears, writing for New York Post, report that "The Biggest Loser" is a big fat failure -- and it's time for NBC to do away with the extreme-dieting show, disgusted former contestants say. "The show needs to be done, canceled, destroyed," Season 2's Suzanne Mendonca told The Post on May 22. "They look at us like we're failures today, but we were not going to succeed. They threw us away like yesterday's garbage," she said on the day The Post revealed allegations that some of the show's workers pushed illegal diet pills on contestants while encouraging them to starve themselves. Season 3's Kai Hibbard also called for an end to the reality show, which has run for 17 seasons. "The show should've been canceled 10 years ago," the ex-contestant said. She said she hopes a recent National Institutes of Health study on the show will bring change. The study suggested contestants often regain lost weight because their metabolic rates were permanently damaged after being on the show. "To continue this body-shaming physically and psychologically damaging monstrosity with future contestants in light of this current study and others is irresponsible and unconscionable," Ms. Hibbard said. Ms. Mendonca said she and about 10 to 15 other former contestants are shopping around for a lawyer to bring a class-action lawsuit against the show. "Nobody should be able to get away with this stuff," she said. Ms. Hibbard said such a lawsuit wouldn't be "unreasonable," but asked, "How do you put a price on a permanently damaged metabolism and the long term psychological repercussions?" In the May 22 Post, Ms. Mendonca said that contestants were encouraged to go to extreme lengths to shed pounds, and that five people were taken to the hospital in her season after passing out. A source close to the production said show trainer Bob Harper and an assistant doled out Adderall and pills with FDA-banned ephedra extract to contestants to help them lose weight. Joelle Gwynn, of Season 7, said the show's doctor, Rob Huizenga, told them it was "up to us to take them." Mr. Harper said in a statement May 22 that the claims are "absolutely false and are in direct conflict with my lifelong devotion to health and fitness." "Safety is paramount in my training regimen, and, while demanding, my approach has always focused on the overall well-being of contestants," he said. Mr. Huizenga has also denied the claims, saying contestants are told "there is zero tolerance for any weight-loss drugs." The show's producers said illegal substances are prohibited, and "the safety and well-being of our contestants is, and always has been, paramount." NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Maine Woman Files Debt Collection Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Harrison, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that when Jane C. Forrester Winne's federal student loans were dismissed after she became disabled because of complications from diabetes in 2011, she believed all the money she borrowed between 1980 and 2008 to attend the University of Maine had been accounted for and that she was free and clear of debt. Three years later, Forrester Winne, 64, of Orono began getting letters and phone calls from collection agencies for private loans from which she maintains neither she nor the university ever received money. Last year, two student loan collection entities sued the nontraditional student in Penobscot County Superior Court over the private loans. Both lawsuits were dismissed, but the collection calls continued, she said on May 17 in her modest Orono kitchen. "It has been haunting, overwhelming, draining and has taken so many years of my life force away from me," Forrester Winne said of how the efforts to collect a debt she doesn't believe she owes and does not have the means to pay have affected her. Since she began taking classes at the university in 1983, Forrester Winne has earned bachelor's and master's degrees and completed all her course work toward a Ph.D. in systems theory as it relates to the ability of societies to adapt in order to survive climatic changes. Earlier this month, Forrester Winne, now legally blind and confined to a wheelchair, sued nine out-of-state entities, including banks, collection agencies and a Massachusetts law firm, alleging they have violated the federal and state Fair Debt Collection Practices acts and Truth in Lending laws. The 27-page complaint dated May 2 asks U.S. District Judge George Singal to issue an injunction ordering the defendants to stop calling and mailing Forrester Winne in an effort to collect a debt to which they are not entitled. Forrester Winne's attorney, Cynthia Dill of Portland, is seeking class action status for the lawsuit. Ms. Dill estimated in the complaint that the two separate student loan trusts that sued Forrester Winne last year claimed to have issued private loans to 686 Maine students totaling nearly $7 million in 2004 and 2005, the same years the trusts claimed Forrester Winne received loans. The lawsuits, which were dismissed after Dill threatened to counter sue, claimed Forrester Winne borrowed $20,000 each year but that by 2015 the total owed was nearly $80,000 because of accrued interest, the lawyer said on May 20. "I think that students completed paperwork not knowing some loans were private and some public," Ms. Dill said on May 17. "In this case, my client may have completed the paperwork but did not get loan proceeds and neither did the universtiy on her behalf." Forrester Winne said she filled out paperwork for loans at the financial aid office at the university never knowing whether the money that paid her tuition was from federal or private sources. Private loans account for an estimated 7 to 10 percent of the $1.27 trillion student debt that was outstanding last year, but private borrowing is on the rise, according to a New York Times story published in September. Unlike other debts, neither federal nor private loans can be forgiven through the bankruptcy process, according to Dill. Federal loans can be dismissed if the borrower dies or becomes permanently disabled, as Forrester Winne did. Complicating the matter, according to Dill, is how bad and uncollectable student debt was bundled and resold in a manner similar to the actions that led to the home mortgage crisis. "That's the reason there are so many defendants in Forrester Winne's case," the attorney said. Erin Reczek, an attorney associated with one of the defendants, Abrahamsen Ratchford, the law firm with an office in Amesbury, Massachusetts that sued Forrester Winne in Bangor District Court last year, declined on May 20 to comment on the federal lawsuit as her firm has not received it yet. Efforts to determine who is representing the other defendants were unsuccessful on May 20. Attorneys have not yet entered their appearances because the complaint has not been served, according to information posted on the court's electronic case filing system. Similar lawsuits filed this year against the same defendants Forrester Winne has sued are pending in federal court in South Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Florida, according to the results of a search using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. Last year, President Barack Obama advocated for and won changes in the way federal student loans that are in default are collected, allowing more students to access loan rehabilitation programs overseen by the U. S. Department of Education, according to Diana Nichols, president of Gold Key Consulting, who wrote an article published on CNBC's website last year. Ms. Nichols said that 70 percent of college graduates, like Forrester Winne, paid their tuition with student loans. "I always thought I would get to a point where I would be able to pay these back and it wouldn't be a hindrance," Forrester Winne said on May 17. Forrester Winne grew up in Washington County, dropped out of high school and often worked three jobs, including digging clams, tipping for wreath companies and waitressing. As she became involved in environmental issues, Forrester Winne realized she needed an education to be able to understand and discuss them. "The American public aspires to education, not just to get a well- paying job but to have knowledge, to enliven their minds and to be effective in helping to find solutions and ways to solve the problems that we are having, now especially," Forrester Winne said on May 17. "I think that the lure of education is strong. "Students in this country, like me, are constantly under the oppression of trying to figure out how to pay our student loans, which we would [willingly] do," she said. "A lot of them these days, including me, are just wondering where does this all go now after the financial crisis and everything else." In addition to Abrahamsen Ratchford, the defendants in the lawsuit are National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, U.S. Bank National Association, Transworld Systems, Inc., VCG Securities Inc., PNC Bank, Charter One Bank and Turnstile Capital Management. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Ex-Players Remove Name from Concussion Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Wogenrich, writing for The Morning Call, reports that two former two former Penn State players have removed their names from a class-action concussion lawsuit against the university, NCAA and Big Ten Conference, with one saying he never agreed to be a plaintiff at all. Eric Ravotti, a former Penn State linebacker and defensive end, filed a notice of dismissal on May 18 seeking to be removed from the suit "with prejudice." Mr. Ravotti said in an interview that he planned legal action against the law firm handling the cases, calling claims made on his behalf false. "They obviously fabricated my involvement to file it," Mr. Ravotti said of Edelson PC, the Chicago law firm that filed the suit. "It's still surreal that somebody would do this to me." Mr. Ravotti's withdrawal, along with that of former Penn State safety James Boyd, complicated the suit, one of six that former college players filed against the NCAA and some conferences regarding concussion diagnoses and treatments. NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Vacates Findings in "Whitfield" ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard L. Young granted in part the motion for entry of final judgment filed by Matthew Whitfield in his lawsuit against International Truck and Engine Corporation, f/k/a Navistar International Corporation. Whitfield alleges that Navistar discriminated against him on the basis of his race when it failed to hire him as an electrician, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. section 1981. The matter ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, and the court held that Whitfield had failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Navistar discriminated against him. Whitfield appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judge Young vacated the district court's previous Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Seventh Circuit's opinion. Judge Young further vacated the court's Final Judgment and granted in part Whitfield's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Whitfield's motion was granted in part because the court only resolves the issue of liability. Judge Young said, "Having considered the Seventh Circuit's opinion, the court now holds that Navistar is liable to Whitfield under both Title VII and Section 1981 for refusing to hire him because of his race. This holding is based upon the following facts: (1) Whitfield met the qualifications for the open electrician position; (2) Navistar hired several white electricians with less experience while Whitfield's application was pending; (3) Whitfield's personnel file contained a cover page with the word "black" on it; and (4) Navistar failed to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring Whitfield. A rational jury presented with these facts would find that Whitfield was the victim of unlawful discrimination. There is no need to hold a new trial." Whitfield filed on June 5, 2015, the motion for entry of final judgment in his favor based upon the Seventh Circuit's opinion. The parties subsequently conducted informal settlement negotiations, but those efforts were unsuccessful. In a telephonic status conference, the district court indicated that it would issue a decision on liability and then allow the parties an opportunity to attend a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge. In addition to establishing liability, Judge Young discussed the issue of damages to assist the parties in their settlement efforts. Judge Young noted that Whitfield seeks back pay with compounded interest in the amount of $1,815,107.37, lost pension benefits in the amount of $23,000.00, compensatory damages in an amount determined by the court, punitive damages in an amount determined by the court that is "at least an amount equal to the back pay and compensatory damages awarded," costs, and attorneys' fees. He contends that no deductions from the back pay award are appropriate because: (1) Navistar failed to elicit testimony regarding interim earnings at trial, and (2) Navistar failed to carry its burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages. Navistar does not discuss damages at all in its Response brief. Whitfield then contends that Navistar waived the issue. In essence, Whitfield argues that the court should ignore the fact that he was earning an income while attempting to get hired by Navistar, and provide him with the full salary he claims he would have earned at Navistar from 1998-2008. "This the court cannot do," Judge Young said. Regardless of Navistar's alleged trial error and waiver, Title VII, Judge Young explained, expressly requires the court to deduct interim earnings from a back pay award: "Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g)(1). Judge Young also cited Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) ("[T]he mandatory 'shall' . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion."). According to Judge Young, granting Whitfield's request for back pay would confer an unjust windfall, which runs afoul of Congress' intent. The back pay award Whitfield seeks goes far beyond making him whole because he would effectively have earned two salaries for a period of ten years. The case is captioned GREG ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, f/k/a NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Defendant, No. 1:02-cv-00902-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind.). A full-text copy of Judge Young's May 23, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/PdwuZW from Leagle.com. GREG ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia H. Hyndman -- chyndman@robinsoncurley.com -- ROBINSON CURLEY & CLAYTON PC, pro hac vice, Fay Clayton -- fclayton@robinsoncurley.com -- ROBINSON CURLEY & CLAYTON, pro hac vice, Kevin W. Jent -- kjent@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, pro hac vice, Richard D. Hailey, RAMEY & HAILEY, Rocco Calamusa, Jr. -- rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, pro hac vice, Russell W. Adams -- radams@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, pro hac vice & Samuel Fisher -- sfisher@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIAS LLC, pro hac vice. INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Harold R. Bickham -- harold.bickham@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Jeanine R. Kerridge -- jeanine.kerridge@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, John R. Maley -- john.maley@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Laurence H. Levine, pro hac vice & Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP. NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Interested Party, represented by Terence Leslie Fague -- fague@coollaw.com -- COOLIDGE WALL WOMSLEY & LOMBARD, pro hac vice. NEVADA: Suit Filed Over Automobile Medical Payments --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that The Nevada Public Employees' Benefits Program illegally subrogates automobile medical payments against its members, a class action claims in Reno, Nev. Washoe County Court. NEWLINK GENETICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on May 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NewLink Genetics Corporation (NewLink or the "Company") securities during the period between September 17, 2013 and May 9, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors with losses in excess of $100,000 who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until July 11, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in NewLink securities during the Class Period. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that algenpantucel-L, the Company's pancreatic cancer treatment, was ineffective and potentially harmful to patients. According to the complaint, following the May 9, 2016 Company announcement that algenpantucel-L did not meet the main goal in the Company's Phase 3 IMPRESS study and patients treated with algenpantucel-L lived for a median of 27.3 months compared to a median survival of 30.4 months for patients treated with standard therapy, suggesting that patients were actually harmed by algenpantucel-L, the value of NewLink shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss from investment in NewLink securities purchased on or after September 17, 2013 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against "Castillo" Action ------------------------------------------------------ Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Carrie Castillo, Anastassia Letourneau and Jacquelyn Myhre, former employees of the Company, filed on March 10, 2016, a purported collective and class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois and Minnesota wage laws (the "Labor Laws") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs filed the case on their behalf and on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by the Company since January 5, 2013 whom the Company classified as exempt employees, and they allege that the Company violated the Labor Laws by not paying overtime compensation to its assistant general managers. The plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of themselves and members of the putative class, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and available penalties under applicable state laws, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. This case is at an early stage, and the Company is therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company has filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for The District of Colorado, where a similar case was filed in February 2016. ONEOK INC: Settlement Reached in Gas Index Pricing Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- ONEOK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in March 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged against it and its affiliates, ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. and Kansas Gas Marketing Company, in the putative class action lawsuits that claimed damages resulting from alleged market manipulation or false reporting of prices to gas index publications by the Company and others: Learjet, Arandell, Heartland Regional Medical Center, and NewPage. "We anticipate a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement will be filed in May 2016. The amount we expect to pay to settle these cases is not material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows and is expected to be paid with cash on hand," the Company said. "This agreement in principle to settle does not apply to the Sinclair or Reorganized FLI cases, previously reported in our Annual Report. We expect that future charges, if any, from the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Oriental Salad Products Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Phoenix Arizona, Papa John's Salad and Produce, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Oriental Salad with Sesame Ginger Dressing due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. This voluntary action is being undertaken in cooperation with the US Food and Drug Administration because the recalled products contain sunflower kernels that are part of the recent SunOpta sunflower kernel recall expansion. SunOpta's recall can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm502184.htm Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses as of 5/21/16 have been reported to Papa John's Salads and Produce for the products involved in this voluntary recall. Products covered by this voluntary recall were distributed in the following states AZ, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, WY. Specific retail stores affected include Albertson's, Safeway, Bashas', and Food 4 Less. Brand Container UPC Sell by Date ----- Size --- ------------ --------- Albertsons/Safeway 10 oz. 78279602691 5/18, 5/19, Oriental Salad with 5/20, 5/21, Sesame Ginger Dressing 5/22, 5/23, Bashas 5/24, 5/25 Oriental Salad with 10 oz. 78279602691 5/18, 5/ 19, Sesame Ginger Dressing 5/20, 5/21, 5/22, 5/23, 5/24 Food 4 Less 13 oz. 78279602840 5/18, 5/ 19, Oriental Salad with 5/20, 5/21, Sesame Ginger Dressing 5/22, 5/23, 5/24, 5/25 Papa John's Salads and Produce, Inc. is working with our customers to remove the products from store shelves and distribution. Consumers who have purchased these items are advised to discard them or return them to the store where originally purchased. The sell by date is located on the left side for the 10 oz. package and top side for the 13 oz. package. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Brandy Rousselle, Consumer Relation's Manager, at (480) 894-6885 ext. 125. The line is monitored between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, 7 days a week. We have already contacted our customers regarding specific lot codes and shipments that were impacted by this recall. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/CoroQ0 PERRIGO CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.J. -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Perrigo Co. rejected a $235 per share buyout offer from nonparty Mylan a year ago, and the price sank below $99 in April this year, a class action claims in Newark Federal Court. PG&E CORP: 32 Complaints Filed in Connection With Butte Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in connection with the Butte fire, approximately 32 complaints have been filed to date against the Utility and its vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California in both the County of Calaveras and the County of San Francisco, involving approximately 1,300 individual plaintiffs and their insurance On April 28, 2016, Cal Fire released its report of the investigation of the origin and cause of the "Butte fire," the wildfire that ignited and spread in Amador and Calaveras Counties in Northern California in September 2015. Cal Fire's report concluded that the wildfire was caused when a Gray Pine tree contacted the Utility's electric line which ignited portions of the tree, and determined that the failure by the Utility and its vegetation management contractors to identify certain potential hazards during its vegetation management program ultimately led to the failure of the tree. In a press release also issued on April 28, 2016, Cal Fire indicated that it will seek to recover firefighting costs in excess of $90 million from the Utility. In connection with the Butte fire, approximately 32 complaints have been filed to date against the Utility and its vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of California in both the County of Calaveras and the County of San Francisco, involving approximately 1,300 individual plaintiffs and their insurance companies. In response to plaintiffs' and the Utility's requests, the California Judicial Council has authorized the coordination of all cases in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County. Plaintiffs have begun to present to the Utility claims seeking early resolution of preference cases (individuals who due to their age and/or physical condition are not likely to meaningfully participate in a trial under normal scheduling). The number of complaints may increase in the future. An initial case management conference was held on April 22, 2016 and the next case management conference is currently scheduled for May 24, 2016. In connection with this matter, the Utility may be liable for property damages without having been found negligent, through the theory of inverse condemnation. In addition, the Utility may be liable for fire suppression costs, personal injury damages, and other damages if the Utility were found to have been negligent. As a result of the Cal Fire report, additional investigations and proceedings may be opened, the outcome of which PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict. PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Metal Halide Lamps Due to Burn Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Philips Lighting North America Corp., of Somerset, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 87,000 Metal Halide Lamps. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The outer bulbs can shatter, resulting in hot internal pieces of glass falling from the lamps, posing a burn and laceration hazard. This recall involves the Philips Energy Advantage Ceramic Metal Halide Lamps model CDM330. They are designed as energy efficient replacements for traditional 400W quartz metal halide lamps installed in magnetic ballasts and intended for use in high- ceiling industrial, retail and commercial applications. The lamps were sold in both clear and coated versions. Each lamp includes an etching, located either at the base of the lamp or on the ovoid of the lamps, that displays the relevant date code, along with Philips' name, wattage (330W) and the model (CDM330). Affected lamps can be identified with one of the following date codes: Date Code Month/Year --------- ---------- 1E May 2011 1F June 2011 1G July 2011 1H August 2011 1J September 2011 1K October 2011 1L November 2011 1M December 2011 Each lamp includes an etching, located either at the base of the lamp or on the ovoid of the lamps, that displays the relevant date code, along with Philips' name, wattage (330W) and the model (CDM330). The firm has received two reports of lamps shattering. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/0tGyhc The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Electrical supply distributors from May 2011 through June 2012 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and contact Philips for a free replacement. PONTIAC, IL: Court Severs RLUIPA Claim From "Coleman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CARLTON COLEMAN, # M-03859, Plaintiff, v. T. SCOTT KEEN, and JOHN R. BALDWIN, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-234- NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel ruled on two motions filed by the plaintiff: a motion to reconsider the threshold merit review order and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Carlton Coleman, who is currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights action on January 8, 2016, in the Central District of Illinois. He complained that several officials at Pontiac Correctional Center, where he was previously confined, refused to provide him with a kosher diet in accordance with his religious beliefs. He raised civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking damages for violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and requested injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In an order dated March 3, 2016, United States District Judge Harold A. Baker determined that Coleman's claim for injunctive relief (to be provided with a kosher diet, which is still being denied him) must be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois, because the plaintiff's current prison is located in the judicial district for the Southern District of Illinois. Several Defendants, including Godinez (former IDOC Director), Pfister (Pontiac Warden), and Kennell (Pontiac Chaplain) were dismissed from the action. Coleman sought reconsideration of the merit review order of March 3, 2016, asserting that the order did not include any review of the merits of his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the Pontiac officials, thus the dismissal of Defendants Godinez, Pfister, and Kennell was in error. Jude Rosenstengel ordered that Coleman's claim under the RLUIPA for injunctive relief (to be provided with a kosher diet at Lawrence) be administratively severed from the original case transferred to her court from the Central District of Illinois. The severed case shall remain in the Southern District of Illinois, while the remainder shall be transferred back to the Central District of Illinois, in order for that court to address the pending motion to reconsider the merit review/case management order (Doc. 10). Coleman also sought to amend his complaint to add his current warden and chaplain as defendants, raise certain medical claims, include a claim for denial of access to the courts, and to seek class action status. Judge Rosenstengel granted Coleman's motion to amend in part, insofar as he shall have 35 days in which to submit a proper amended complaint. The judge also denied in part, in that the motion itself is not effective to alter the original complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's May 23, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/mGt9vk from Leagle.com. PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Pollution ---------------------------------------------------------------- KOIN 6 News reports that two people who live within a mile of Precision Castparts have filed a class action lawsuit against the company for allegedly emitting toxic air pollution from its Southeast Portland facility. The lawsuit filed by Brian and Rodica Resendez, who have lived near Precision Castparts' facility on Southeast Harney Drive near Johnson Creek since 2005, claims the company releases toxic materials, including arsenic and nickel, into the air. The suit, which is filed "individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons," said the toxic emissions threaten neighbors' health and has reduced outdoor activity, such as gardening. They want Precision Castparts to stop its toxic emissions, "remediate its environmental contamination" and pay damages to the people in the class. Precision Castparts spokesperson Jay Khetani told KOIN 6 News, "We do not comment on pending litigation. We are looking forward to our community meeting on the 25th." Precision Castparts makes parts for airplanes, among other things, and employs nearly 2,800 people in the Portland area. The Department of Environmental Quality recently began monitoring the air around the plant after a Department of Forestry study found high levels of arsenic and nickel. Air monitors were installed to look for metals including lead, cobalt and cadmium. At an April 19 meeting with the Milwaukie City Council, Precision Castparts said it doesn't use arsenic. "We feel really good about the strong emission controls that we have," Precision Castparts' Aaron Johnson said. "We know what alloys and components we use." The plant is investing $17 million in new pollution controls, including a $4 million storm water filtration system. PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cranberry Nut and Seed Mix Due to Listeria ---------------------------------------------------------------- Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for cranberry nut and seed mix because it may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes. Publix received notification of the potential contamination from the walnut supplier, Woodstock Farms, after routine testing was completed. The 7.05 ounce plastic containers of prepackaged cranberry nut and seed mix were sold at Publix retail produce departments in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina with a UPC of 41415-34986 and with use by dates August 7, 2016 through August 30, 2016. Consumption of products containing Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. "As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations director. "To date, there have been no reported cases of illness. Consumers who have purchased the products in question may return the product to their local store for a full refund. Publix customers with additional questions may call our Consumer Relations department at 1-800-242- 1227 or by visiting our website at www.publix.comdisclaimer icon. Customers can also contact the US Food and Drug Administration at 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366)." Publix is privately owned and operated by its 179,500 employees, with 2015 sales of $32.4 billion. Currently Publix has 1,113 stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina. The company has been named one of Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" for 19 consecutive years. In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is recognized among the top in the grocery business. QUAKER OATS: Recalls Quinoa Granola Bars Due to Sunflower Kernels ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Quaker Oats Company, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of a small quantity of Quaker Quinoa Granola Bars after an ingredient supplier was found to have distributed sunflower kernels that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes (L.mono). There have been no reported illnesses to date. However, Quaker is initiating the voluntary recall in an abundance of caution to protect public health. Listeria monocytogenes (L.mono) is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. While the vast majority of potentially affected Quaker products were withheld from ever reaching retail shelves, the products being recalled were distributed nationwide and are as follows: --- 6.1 ounce boxes of Quaker Quinoa Granola Bars Chocolate Nut Medley with UPC code 30000 32241 and Best Before Dates of: 10/16/2016, 10/17/2016 --- 6.1 ounce boxes of Quaker Quinoa Granola Bars Yogurt, Fruit & Nut with UPC 30000 32243 and Best Before Dates of: 10/10/2016, 10/11/2016 Pictures of the products listed above will be available on www.quakeroats.com. At this time there are no other Quaker products involved in this situation. The company is working closely with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to further investigate this issue, but in the meantime is taking these actions out of commitment to and concern for consumers. Consumers who have purchased either of the above products are urged to dispose of or return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. They can also direct any questions to 800-856-5781, Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (EST), or find more information at www.quakeroats.com. RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Dwayne Faulkner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RCI PLBG, Inc. and Affinity Human Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02393 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. RCI PLBG, Inc. operates a plumbing company located at 555 Ave of the Americas, New York, NY 10011. Dwayne Faulkner is a pro se plaintiff. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonya Seamster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No. 3:16- cv-01298-D (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Receivables Performance Management LLC operates an accounts receivable management headquartered at 0816 44th Avenue W, Lynnwood, WA 98036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey Jr., Esq. William Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY LLP Galleria Tower 1 2700 Post Oak Blvd Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com craft@hughesellzey.com - and - Bryant A. Fitts, Esq. FITTS LAW FIRM PLLC 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 871-1670 Facsimile: (713) 583-1492 E-mail: bfitts@fittslawfirm.com - and - Mark A. Alexander, Esq. MARK A ALEXANDER PC 5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: (972) 364-9700 Facsimile: (972) 239-2244 E-mail: mark@crb-law.com RICOH INDIA: InGovern Says Class Action Suit Should Be Taken ------------------------------------------------------------ Amrit Raj, writing for live mint, reports that proxy advisory firm InGovern has sought government-appointed directors on the board of Ricoh India, the local unit of the Japanese company in which auditors have pointed out several accounting inconsistencies. InGovern said the onus is on the Securities and Exchange Board of India, or Sebi, to intervene in the matter as "a pro-active regulator" rather than a "passive one". It also requested for more than "one government-appointed member" on the board of Ricoh India. "Class action suit should be taken. At the end of the day, they (the government) did it in the Satyam case. Government-appointed directors should be there on the board. Not one director but all the directors," said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of InGovern. "Sebi should take suo moto cognisance of the case. They should investigate. They are responsible for the integrity of the capital market," he added. Ricoh India started as a joint venture between India's RPG Group and Japan's Ricoh Co. Ltd in 1993. In 1998, the company was reincorporated with 76% ownership by the Japanese firm and the rest by the Indian public. BSE Ltd in an 18 March notice said that, pursuant to a Sebi circular, Ricoh India along with four other companies would be shifted to the "Z" group with effect from March 28 because of non-compliance with listing norms for two consecutive quarters. Since then, the company's stock has plunged, declining from Rs.569 on March 18 to Rs.283.60 on May 20. On May 13, the company filed a police complaint saying it has detected massive financial irregularities and fraud in the company after a forensic investigation revealed "wrongdoing". The forensic audit was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which had been contracted by Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for the job. Ricoh India had appointed BSR & Co. as its auditors and the latter sought a "review of certain transactions" conducted by some of the company executives, The Times of India reported on May 13. S.S. Kothari Mehta & Co. also conducted an enquiry, but its findings were not agreed upon with BSR. "Most importantly, the entire replacement of auditors raises a lot of doubt. They also could not figure out. It was not clear whether the parent company knew about the issue. If they knew it, they should have immediately informed the stock exchanges," Subramanian of InGovern said. Following this, Ricoh India's managing director and chief executive Manoj Kumar, chief financial officer Arvind Singhal and chief operating officer Anil Saini were sent on leave. The company board has promoted A.D. Rajan as the new managing director and chief executive. He was earlier chief strategy officer and senior vice-president. A public relations executive at Ricoh declined to comment on the story. "We have nothing more to share than we have put out in public," she said. India Ratings and Research said the company started rating Ricoh India in 2014, and since then, Ricoh Japan had demonstrated financial support to Ricoh India by fund infusions through non- convertible debentures of Rs.200 crore and commercial papers of Rs.270 crore in fiscal year 2015. India Ratings put the firm on Rating Watch Negative on March 16, 2016, on account of delays in results for the second and third quarters of fiscal 2016. Ricoh India's rating largely reflected the operational linkages and financial support from Ricoh Japan. According to India Ratings, Ricoh Japan's linkages were reflected in the following: Ricoh Japan holds a 73.6% stake in the company. Ricoh Japan had increased its stake in the company and also tried to gain greater control. Ricoh Japan had its nominees on the board and played a key role in the appointment of the senior management, having deputed its employees as senior management in the past. Ind-Ra had also considered that the parent, Ricoh Japan, was known for following very standards of high corporate governance. Ricoh India's bankers were largely foreign banks and a large percentage of Ricoh India's borrowings were provided by them. "In our discussions with bankers it was highlighted that the bankers to Indian entity drew comfort from Ricoh Japan." The rest of Ricoh India's debt was funded by Ricoh Japan. "Now on 18 May 2016 the company has advised that its accounts do not reflect true and fair picture and it suspects a fraud. The auditors of the company have also suspected the financial numbers," the India Ratings spokesperson said. "We are trying to get in touch with Ricoh Japan to get greater clarity and we could shortly hold an rating committee to discuss these developments," he added. RIXSON OF MONROE: Recalls Exterior Gate Closers ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rixson, of Monroe, N.C, a brand of Yale Security Inc. Yale Security is owned by Assa Abloy, announced a voluntary recall of about 130 Exterior Gate Closers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The gate closer mechanism can break and eject metal pieces including the spring or it can spray oil, posing a risk of injury. This recall involves the Exterior Gate Closer Model 1350. The affected gate closer is affixed to external gates and has a body that is approximately 6.5 inches long, with a sliding arm that is about 3 feet in width when extended. The unit is marked on the side of the body with "MAB/ASSA ABLOY." The recall only includes units produced between January 2014 and December 2015. The unit's production date is stamped on the side of the gate closer body in a "week/year" format and can be accessed by removing the body's plastic housing. The firm has received 15 reports worldwide of mechanisms breaking and ejecting metal objects, including three in the U.S. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/oL6VjV The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Wholesale and hardware distributors from April 2015 through November 2015 for about $460. Consumers should immediately stop using the gate and contact Rixson for information on safely removing the arm from the gate closer and returning for a free replacement gate closer. Rixson is contacting consumers who bought the recalled product directly. ROCKWELL INT'L: Settles Rocky Flats Class Action for $375MM ----------------------------------------------------------- John Aguilar, writing for Denver Post, reports that thousands of homeowners who lived downwind of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and the operators of the controversial facility have settled a lawsuit to the tune of $375 million, more than a quarter century after the legal action was first filed. The settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge, brings to an end a 26-year legal saga that began when homeowners living east of Rocky Flats accused the plant's operators, Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co., of devaluing their properties due to plutonium releases from the plant. The lawsuit, which included as many as 15,000 homeowners in an area largely encompassing neighborhoods surrounding Standley Lake, was first filed in 1990. In court papers filed on May 18, the lawsuit was described as "quite possibly the largest docket of any District of Colorado case to date." "Both sides are satisfied with the settlement," Merrill Davidoff, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Denver Post on May 19. According to court filings, the plaintiff class includes all those who "as of June 7, 1989" -- the day after the FBI raided the plant -- owned property in the affected area. Anyone who sold their property before that date and anyone who purchased property after that date would not qualify. Mr. Davidoff -- who confirmed the settlement amount, which was not listed in court documents -- said final approval by a federal judge and establishment of a claims filing process for homeowners could be "months away." William Schierkolk, listed as one of the representatives in the class-action suit, said he moved to his property on Alkire Street in 1975 because "it looked like a nice place to live." Mr. Schierkolk, 84, said he knew many people who worked at Rocky Flats during its operational years, from 1952 to 1992. And he heard from many neighbors who tried selling their homes that the value of their property had dropped significantly. Of the settlement, Mr. Schierkolk said, "It's been a long time." "I was thinking we no longer had justice in this country," he said. Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow Chemical, said her company's share of the settlement total is $131.25 million. The U.S. Department of Energy, which oversaw the plant, ultimately is expected to pay that bill, she said. "The U.S. Department of Energy authorized the settlement, and Dow fully expects to be indemnified for the full cost of the settlement," she said. "This settlement resolves 26 years of litigation, and Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the company and its shareholders." Rockwell, which will pay $243.75 million of the total, said in a news release on May 19 that it too "expects to be paid or reimbursed for the full cost of the settlement." "Under Rockwell International's contract and federal law, it is entitled to indemnification by the DOE for the settlement amount," it said. The company, which was acquired by Boeing in 1996, said it doesn't expect the bulk of the settlement monies to be paid out to homeowners until June or July 2017. The DOE released a statement to The Post on May 19. "While the Department of Energy was not a party to the case, the department is pleased that the parties have reached a settlement resolving long-standing litigation between property owners in the vicinity of the former Rocky Flats plant and Dow Chemical Company and Rockwell International Corporation, DOE's former contractors at the plant," the statement said. The agreement, reached late on May 18, puts to an end a case -- dubbed Cook et al. vs. Rockwell International -- that has been through multiple bends and turns in federal court. In 2006, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and a federal judge awarded them $926 million. But in 2010, that award was thrown out by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the jury reached its decision on faulty instructions that incorrectly stated the law. The 6,500-acre Rocky Flats, 16 miles northwest of Denver, opened in 1952 to manufacture plutonium triggers for the nation's nuclear arsenal. Dow operated the plant until 1975, when Rockwell took it over and ran it until 1989. It formally was shuttered in 1992 and underwent a $7 billion cleanup that concluded in 2005. It is now a national wildlife refuge, although a 1,300-acre core area where weapons production occurred remains a Superfund site and off limits to the public. In 1992, Rockwell settled with the Justice Department and pleaded guilty to 10 violations of the Clean Water Act and federal hazardous-waste laws, including illegal storage of hazardous wastes. The company paid $18.5 million in fines. ROYAL COACHMAN: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Grant County judge has given preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by mobile homeowners against their landlord in central Washington. The lawsuit alleges that Royal Coachman Mobile Home Park, in the town of Royal City, double billed tenants for utilities starting in September 2014 when new management took over. Attorneys for the homeowners, Columbia Legal Services, say under the settlement, homeowners will receive a full refund of $53,000. Rent increases will also be limited until January 2020, the park will remain open for at least five years and a plain language rental agreement will be offered in English and Spanish under the settlement. The plaintiff's attorneys say the double billing violates the Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. SEMPRA ENERGY: 138 Cases Filed Related to Gas Leak -------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 28, 2016, 138 lawsuits have been filed related to the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak. In October 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is more than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells at the storage facility. As of April 28, 2016, 138 lawsuits have been filed (134 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2 in San Diego County Superior Court, and 2 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California) against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative and securities law claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, strict liability, property damage, fraud, nuisance, trespass, breach of fiduciary duties, and violation of federal securities laws, among other things, and additional litigation may be filed against us in the future related to this incident. Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Los Angeles City Attorney and Los Angeles County Counsel have also filed a complaint on behalf of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas for public nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The California Attorney General, acting in her independent capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California and the CARB, joined this lawsuit. The complaint, which as amended includes the California Attorney General, adds allegations of violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public, and 25510, requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties. The SCAQMD also filed a complaint against SoCalGas seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for each day the violations occurred. On February 2, 2016, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely notice of the leak pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and Title 19 California Code of Regulations section 2703(a), and for violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public. The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits and cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil and criminal fines, costs and other penalties, if awarded or imposed, could be significant and to the extent not covered by insurance, or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. SENECA COAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Conn, Austin Tilley and Nelson Saddler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seneca Coal Resources, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-04331 (S.D.W.V., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide notice prior to termination. Seneca Coal Resources, LLC is in the business of producing metallurgical coal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle G. Lusk, Esq. LUSK & BRADFORD 220 North Fayette Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-5628 Facsimile: (304) 255-7071 E-mail: luskandbradford@lumos.net - and - M. Vance McCrary, Esq. Mary E. Olsen, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM PC 210 South Washington Avenue, P. O. Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - Matthew A. Bradford, Esq. KYLE G. LUSK & ASSOCIATES 220 North Fayette Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-5628 Facsimile: (304) 255-7071 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 SHAPIRO BROWN & ALT: "Burke" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay ----------------------------------------------------------- In the civil cases captioned FLOYD RONALD BURKE, Plaintiff, v. SHAPIRO, BROWN & ALT, LLP, et al., Defendants. R. DANTE DECAPRI, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF SHAPIRO, BROWN & ALT, LLP, Defendant, Civil Nos. 3:14cv838 (DJN), 3:14cv201 (DJN) (E.D. Va.), Judge David J. Novak granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, for attorney's fees, expenses, and service award pursuant to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided for a settlement fund of $112,500 to settle the FDCPA claims on a class basis. Judge Novak also approved the class counsel's request for an attorneys' fee award of $150,000.00, as well as a $3,000 service award to each of the named plaintiffs. A full-text copy of Judge Novak's May 17, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/ZBP6kl from Leagle.com. On March 21, 2014, R. Dante DeCapri commenced a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the defendant Law Office of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP (SBA) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by (1) failing to include "by the debt collector" or similar language in the required component of the 30-day validation notice disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3); (2) contradicting and creating confusion in its section 1692g(a)(3) disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(4); (3) using a false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt by omitting the "by debt collector" or similar language in the required component of the 30-day validation notice disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10); (4) falsely stating that if the debtor chooses to dispute the debt he must do so within 30 days, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10); and (5) omitting the "in writing" requirement from the statement of the consumer's rights in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692E(10). On the same date, Floyd Ronald Burke also commenced a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, similarly alleging that SBA violated the FDCPA. Floyd Ronald Burke, Plaintiff, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Leonard Anthony Bennett -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Dale Wood Pittman, The Law Office of Dale W. Pittman, P.C. & Susan Mary Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates. Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP, Professional Foreclosure Corporation, Defendants, represented by Bizhan Beiramee -- bbeiramee@beiramee.com -- Beiramee Law Group PC, John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Megan E. Burns -- megan.burns@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. SOS TELECOM: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil ---------------------------------------------------------- SOS Telecom, Inc. of Bayside, NY is voluntarily recalling all lots of the following products to the consumer level because these products were tested by the FDA and found to contain Sildenafil, and analogs of Sildenafil. Sildenafil is a PDE-5 Inhibitor which is the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction (ED), making this tainted dietary supplement and unapproved drug. Sildenafil is not listed on the product labels. --- Tiger-X (Lot No: 9236999; Best use by: 12/16/2016): 1 capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box. --- Ninja-X (Lot: 7920888; Best Use by: 6/31/2018) 1 capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box. --- Ginseng Power-X (Lot: 7788965; Best use by: 10/15/2018) 1 capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box. --- Super Samurai-X (Lot No: 7920499; Best use by: 10/15/2016) 1 capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box. Risk Statement: This undeclared active ingredient poses a threat to consumers because Sildenafil may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs such as nitroglycerin and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. Additionally, the product may cause side effects, such as headaches and flushing. These products were marketed as dietary supplements for male sexual enhancement. The products are packaged in accordance with the respective identifiers listed above. All lots of the specified products sold by SOS Telecom, Inc. are included in this recall. The products were sold through numerous retailers, including convenience stores and gas stations. SOS Telecom, Inc. is notifying its customers by issuing a press release and by direct notification via email. Consumers and retailers that have any of these above mentioned products should stop using and/or distributing this product immediately and arrange return of the products to: Attn: RECALL NOTICE SOS Telecom, Inc. 202-28 45th Ave., Bayside, NY 11361 Consumers with questions regarding this voluntary recall can contact SOS Telecom, Inc. by email at sosphonecard@yahoo.com and/or calling at 718-908-0206, Monday - Friday, 9:00 am to 10:30 am and 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using these drug products. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online by Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm This recall and market action are being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/zGDSLg SPRINGFIELD, MA: Public Schools Sued Over ADA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy C. Fox, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a federal lawsuit alleges that Springfield Public Schools violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by placing more than 200 students with emotional disabilities in schools that provide sub-par education and that worsen their mental health. The civil suit, filed two years ago but currently seeking class- action status, alleges that segregating the students in three day schools -- an elementary, middle, and high school -- drives many to drop out and pushes some into the justice system, according to court documents. It claims the schools subject the students, who struggle to regulate their emotions and behaviors, to inappropriate physical force and isolation in padded rooms. The suit also alleges that students face suspensions for minor offenses, threats of arrest, and actual arrests by police. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the district to integrate the students into Springfield's neighborhood schools, alongside peers without disabilities, and provide staff in those schools to address their behavior issues, the lawsuit says. "We believe that we can prove to the court that students with emotional disabilities or with mental health disabilities and behavioral problems can be educated in neighborhood schools if the schools provide them with appropriate school-based behavioral supports," said Robert D. Fleischner, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. One of those plaintiffs is the Disability Law Center, an independent group based in Boston and empowered by the federal government to protect the rights of the disabled. Stanley J. Eichner, litigation director for the law center, said Springfield's public day schools provide students who have emotional disabilities with "inadequate and inappropriate services." "The damage and harm is being stuck in a dead-end program that's a dumping ground," Mr. Eichner said. A district spokeswoman said she could not comment on the claims because the lawsuit is ongoing. The suit, filed in 2014 by the mother of a teenage student then at Public Day Middle School alleges the district "denies hundreds of children with a mental health disability equal educational opportunity and the opportunity to be educated with their peers without a disability." Another Springfield mother, who asked that her family not be named because her son still attends the Public Day Middle School, said it has been more effective in addressing the 14-year-old's behavioral issues than his previous school in Springfield. But she said she is concerned that he is falling behind academically because he typically has homework only one night a week and teachers do not encourage him to work hard. "They would push them to do their schoolwork more," at the mainstream middle school her son previously attended, the mother said. "Here, I don't think they really care about academics at all. . . . Where he was before, in the regular school system, he was getting homework every day." "The damage and harm is being stuck in a dead-end program that's a dumping ground." Quote Icon Her son is set to move to a mainstream high school as he enters ninth grade next fall, she said. "Education is not the primary mission of the Public Day School, and students make little academic progress there," the plaintiffs claim in court filings. A Globe review of last year's MCAS scores found that 82 percent of students at Springfield Public Day High School scored either "needs improvement" or "warning/failing" in 10th-grade math, compared with 53 percent of 10th-grade students across the Springfield district. Statewide, only 21 percent of 10th-graders scored in the two lowest tiers on the math test. The Public Day High School's scores for the English portion of the MCAS were not available. The lawsuit has been making its way through the US District Court and attorneys for the plaintiffs are currently seeking class action status, which will allow them to represent all students -- about 233 -- at the public day schools, Mr. Fleischner said. A final resolution in the case is likely months, if not years, away, and it is possible the student whose family brought the suit will graduate before it concludes. Mr. Fleischner said the suit will continue either way. "We have been spectacularly impressed by the fortitude and love that our clients' families have showed," Mr. Fleischner said. "Everyone we represent wants their child educated in an integrated neighborhood school." SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nancy Castellano, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff, v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., SFM, LLC and Does 1 through 5, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-02016-00011845-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super, April 8, 2016), is removed to the United States District Court Southern District of California on May 16, 2016, under Case No. 3:16-cv-01184-JLS-JLB. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information resulting from a data breach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC 3555 5th Ave, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: (619) 692-0800 Fax: (619) 692-0822 Email: nroysdon@grahamhollis.com The Defendant is represented by: Tanya L Forsheit, Esq. BAKER & HOSTELER, LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tforsheit@bakerlaw.com ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lynne Barker, Anne Marie Dalio and Dorothy Flar, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. St. Joseph's Healthcare System, Inc., St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center Pension Plan Committee and John Does 1-20, Case No. 2:16-cv-02748- JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 16, 2016), seeks revision of their benefit plan managed by the Defendants to comply with the regulations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; disgorgement of any profits accumulated resulting from fiduciary breaches; civil monetary penalties; declaratory and injunctive relief; attorney fees and expenses, as provided by ERISA. Defendant St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates operates a healthcare conglomerate in New Jersey and provides healthcare services in the communities it serves. Garbaccio is a vested participant in the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center Pension Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Updates Green Bean Packages Recall ---------------------------------------------------- This updated press release includes two items: The correct telephone number: 541-757-1497. The correct best by date 12/2016 for lot #14328001. Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. (SIFI) of Corvallis, Ore., is voluntarily recalling 10 oz. Stahlbush(R) IQF Green Bean retail packages because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The product was distributed throughout the United Stated and Canada. The green beans were packaged for Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. by a co-packer into 10 oz. Stahlbush(R) IQF Green Bean paper retail packages. Product is frozen and has the UPC code 6 38882 00053 7. The lot numbers are found on the back of the package and the affected lot numbers and best by dates are: --- #16034001, with a "best buy" code date of 02/03/18. --- #15097001, with a "best buy" code date of 04/07/17. --- #14328001, with a "best buy" code date of 12/2016. --- #15362001, with a "best buy" code date of 12/28/17. --- #14310002, with a "best buy" code date of 11/06/16. No other Stahlbush(R) products are affected by this recall. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with affected Stahlbush(R) products. The recall was initiated after SIFI was notified by the supplier of the green beans that the supplier had issued a recall of the green beans. Consumers who have purchased IQF green beans affected by the recall should not consume the product and are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at customerservice@stahlbush.com or call (541) 757-1497, open 9 am through 5 pm PDT, Monday through Friday. Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. apologizes for any inconvenience experienced by our valued consumers and retail customers. "We take the safety of our products very seriously," states William Chambers, President and CEO of SIFI. "Immediately after being notified by our supplier that their green beans had been recalled by them, we took action to identify the products implicated in the recall and we discontinued shipment of all affected product. We are working quickly with distributors and retailers to remove the product from shelves and eliminate risk to consumers." Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/aird9w STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Pagoaga" Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Art University. The case is captioned Matthew Pagoaga v. Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Art University, Case No. CGC 16 551952 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016). Stephens Institute is a private, coeducational research university located in Hoboken, New Jersey. SUNOPTA INC: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall ----------------------------------------------------- As a precaution, SunOpta expanded its voluntary recall of a limited number of sunflower kernel products that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The initial recall was limited to sunflower kernel products produced at SunOpta's Crookston, Minn. facility between the dates of February 1, 2016 and February 19, 2016. The expanded recall includes products produced February 20, 2016 through April 21, 2016, the date on which the facility ceased production of the products. No illnesses have been confirmed related to the consumption of this product. Recalled retail items were sold in clear printed plastic packages and are marked with Best By Dates located on the front or back of the packages. Listed below are details regarding the recalled items: Product Size UPC Lot # Best By Date Description ---- --- ----- ------------ ----------- Sunrich 1 oz. 810304032122 37216074 14MAR17 Naturals 37216075 15MAR17 Sunflower 37216076 16MAR17 Kernel 37216077 17MAR17 37216078 18MAR17 37216081 21MAR17 37216082 22MAR17 37216083 23MAR17 37216084 24MAR17 37216085 25MAR17 37216088 28MAR17 37216090 30MAR17 37216091 31MAR17 37216092 01APR17 37216095 04APR17 37216096 05APR17 37216098 07APR17 37216099 08APR17 Planters 3 oz. 029000012714 7072A3, 03/13/17 Sunflower 7072B3, 03/14/17 Kernels 7072C3 03/15/17 7073A3, 03/16/17 7073B3, 7073C3 7074A3, 7074B3, 7074C3 7075A3 Recalled products were distributed to distribution centers during the months of March and April 2016 in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas and may be redistributed to other states nationwide. Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who purchased these products may take them back to the store where they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers seeking information may email contactus@sunopta.com or call 1-888- 886-4428 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time. Retailers and wholesale customers should check their inventories and shelves to confirm that none of the recalled products are present or available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories. Please contact SunOpta at contactus@sunopta.com to arrange for disposal or return of the product. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Company provided the following statement: "SunOpta is committed to ensuring consumer safety and providing quality products and ingredients to customers. The Company has completed its root cause analysis and is working with food safety experts to implement corrective and preventative measures. In an abundance of caution, SunOpta is voluntarily extending the period during which it is recalling a limited number of sunflower kernel products that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes." SunOpta Inc. is a leading global company focused on organic, non- genetically modified ("non-GMO") and specialty foods. SunOpta specializes in the sourcing, processing and packaging of organic and non-GMO food products, integrated from seed through packaged products; with a focus on strategic vertically integrated business models. SunOpta's organic and non-GMO food operations revolve around value-added grain, seed, fruit and vegetable based product offerings, supported by a global sourcing and supply infrastructure. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/XD4eWj SYNAPSE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscription ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Synapse Group automatically renews annual magazine subscriptions, a class action claims in San Diego Superior Court. TD BANK: Pulls Plug on Penny Arcade Coin-Counting Machines ---------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that TD Bank has pulled the plug on its Penny Arcade coin-counting machines, the bank said on May 19. TD had suspended its coin-counting service in early April, after a media report identified inaccuracies in some of the machines. The Cherry Hill-based bank now faces several proposed class-action lawsuits on behalf of customers alleging they were short-changed by the service. "We have determined it is difficult to ensure a consistently great experience for our customers," Michael Rhodes, a TD executive, said in a statement. "In addition, the usage of our coin-counting machines has declined steadily over the past few years." He said the bank "will continue to assess the Penny experience and intends to appropriately address customer impact." TD said its policies had called for daily testing of each machine "with routine and needs-based maintenance" and immediate credits for customers reporting a problem. Despite that, the firm said, it was concerned the machines "may not always meet its standard." A lawsuit filed in April in federal court in Camden alleged the machines "have continuously undercounted coins placed in them by consumers for years and resulted in the loss of millions of dollars for consumers." The suit, filed by attorney Stephen DeNittis of Evesham, seeks to represent people who have used Penny Arcade machines over the past six years. It cited tests by a reporter for NBC's "Today" show, which found incorrect results when $300 in coins were placed in five machines chosen at random. Each of the machines undercounted the coins. TD said it will continue to accept prerolled coins "for deposit from retail, businesses and nonprofit customers at no additional charge and provide free coin wrappers." It said bank personnel would work with "high-volume and business customers" to identify other solutions to their coin-counting needs. TD is one of the country's 10 largest banks, with about 1,300 branches between Maine and Florida. TD BANK: "Spector" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned David Spector, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. CAM-L-1722-16, was removed from the Superior Court of Camden County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02682-JBS-JS to the proceeding. TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Leming, Esq. BROWN & CONNERY, LLP 360 Haddon Avenue Westmont, NJ 08108 Telephone: (856) 854-8900 E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com TOSHIBA CORP: Court Dismisses "Stoyas" Securities Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARK STOYAS; NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND; and AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. CV 15-04194 DDP (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Ayumi Wada, and granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's May 20, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/LFpT6A from Leagle.com. The putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Mark Stoyas in June 2015, alleging that the defendant and two of its former Chief Executive Officers had violated U.S. securities laws by selling stock with an inflated price caused by the defendants' false profit reports. In August 2015, the plaintiff Mark Stoyas did not oppose the Motion of Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. The Court appointed Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund as Lead Plaintiff and its counsel as lead counsel for the class in September 2015. In December 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that named a new plaintiff, New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, and that dismissed the two individual Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to a stipulation, the Court set a briefing schedule for the defendant's response to the FAC, which would be a Motion to Dismiss. In February 2016, the defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), as well as principles of comity and forum non conveniens. The defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) with twenty-one exhibits. The plaintiffs opposed both the RJN and the Motion to Dismiss, as well as filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Ayumi Wada in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Mark Stoyas, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle S Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Darren J Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, John Hamilton George -- jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Willow E Radcliffe -- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Dennis J Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by John Hamilton George, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Willow E Radcliffe, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Dennis J Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP. Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan A Merryman -- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, Christopher M Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jaime M Crowe -- jcrowe@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, pro hac vice & Owen C Pell -- opell@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, pro hac vice. TRANSNET: Court Tosses Bulk of Exceptions to Pensioners' Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Siseko Njobeni, writing for IOL, reports a group of Transnet pensioners scored a significant victory when the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria dismissed the bulk of Transnet's exceptions to their multibillion-rand claim against the company. The judgment is part of an ongoing legal battle between the state- owned entity and about 60 000 ex-workers who have instituted a class action lawsuit, now estimated at more than R80 billion. The North Gauteng High Court dealt with exceptions raised by Transnet and the two funds to the pensioners' claim. "An exception provides a useful mechanism for weeding out cases without legal merit," North Gauteng High Court Judge Francis Legodi said. The decision increases the chances of the matter going to court for a hearing. It comes after the South Gauteng High Court earlier this month ruled in favor of a group of miners and gave them the go-ahead to launch a silicosis class action against a number of mining companies. Three claims The pensioners are suing the Transport Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund. They have cited Transnet as the third defendant in the case. The pensioners' case rests on three claims -- that the funds increase the pension benefits by at least 70 percent of the rate of inflation with effect from 2003; that Transnet pay a R17.1bn plus interest "legacy debt" to the funds; and that the court render unlawful and invalid an undertaking by trustees of the Transport Fund to donate 40 percent of its members' surplus to Transnet. The pensioners allege that the donation is unlawful and want Transnet to pay R309 million plus interest. Transnet objected to all the demands, and branded them as "vague and embarrassing", Judge Legodi said. He dismissed the objections to the pensioners' demand that the funds should continue with the practice of increasing pensions by at least 70 percent of inflation, as they had done between 1989 and 2002. The judge dismissed the objection as "technical and without substance". The funds alleged, in their objection, that the pensioners' claim had no details, including lack of information on who would determine the pension increase; when such a decision would be made; and when the pension increase provision would terminate. The judge said there was "some merit" in the funds' contention. "Failure to state the period within which the promise will endure is a material omission." On the legacy debt, the court ruled in favor of the pensioners. "I find that there is no merit to the suggestion that (the pensioners') claim lacks the averment necessary to sustain a cause of action or that it is bad in law," he said. Objection dismissed The judge also dismissed the objection to the pensioners' claim that Transnet should be liable for repayment of the R309m. The court, however, dismissed the pensioners' claim on unfair labor practice. "For reliance on unfair labor practice, it must be pleaded that there was, and that there is still, a relationship between the employer and employee," Judge Legodi said. In a statement on their website, the pensioners' lawyers Geyser and Coetzee Attorneys, said the pensioners' legal team had 14 days within which to amend their information on those aspects in which the court upheld Transnet and the funds' objections. Richard Carr of the Transnet Pensioners Action Group said on May 20 that they were "extremely" pleased with the judgment. "At long last, the way is now open for the case to be heard in court," Mr. Carr said. Transnet has declined to comment on the ruling. "The pension class action is the subject of an ongoing court process. Transnet, therefore, would prefer not to comment on the details of the case until the process is concluded," the company said in a statement. TREEHOUSE FOODS: Expands Sunflower Kernel Product Recall -------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS) expanded its voluntary recall of products containing sunflower kernels which may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes (L.mono). This follows the announcement on May 18, 2016, by our supplier SunOpta of its expanded recall of sunflower kernels which have the potential to be contaminated with L. mono. L.mono is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores. The additional products being recalled as part of the expansion are listed below. Consumers can find UPC codes and Best By/Date Codes on each package. Description UPC Best by Date ----------- --- ------------ Southern Grove 041498200190 3/28/2017 Adventure Trail Mix Southern Grove 041498131500 3/22/2017 Chopped Walnuts Southern Grove 041498160982 3/24/2017 Cranberry & Nut Trail Mix Southern Grove 041498160982 4/15/2017 Cranberry & Nut Trail Mix Southern Grove 041498148447 4/4/2017 Mountain Trail Mix Southern Grove 041498148447 4/26/2017 Mountain Trail Mix Southern Grove Nuts, 041498177829 3/23/2017 Seeds & Raisins Trail Mix Southern Grove Nuts, 041498177829 4/13/2017 Seeds & Raisins Trail Mix Southern Grove Oven 041498132248 3/16/2017 Roasted Almonds with Sea Salt Southern Grove PB & 041498211004 3/28/2017 Pretzel Trail Mix Southern Grove PB & 041498211004 4/5/2017 Pretzel Trail Mix Southern Grove 041498206680 3/2/2017 Roasted & Salted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680 3/15/2017 & Salted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680 3/28/2017 & Salted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680 4/29/2017 & Salted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680 4/29/2017 & Salted Sunflower Kernels x Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765 4/28/2016 & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765 3/1/2017 & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765 3/14/2017 & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765 3/28/2017 & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels Southern Grove Sliced 041498121686 3/21/2017 Almonds Southern Grove Sunny 041498202057 3/28/2017 Cranberry Trail Mix Southern Grove Tuscan 041498205379 4/28/2017 Trail Mix Southern Grove Unwind 041498200183 3/28/2017 Trail Mix Amport Foods Cranberry 071725706133 3/18/2017 Nut Trail Mix Amport Foods Cranberry 071725706133 4/14/2017 Nut Trail Mix Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241412 11/26/2016 Seeds Roasted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504 12/2/2016 Seeds Roasted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504 12/25/2016 Seeds Roasted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504 12/11/2016 Seeds Roasted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351 12/3/2016 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351 12/26/2016 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351 12/12/2016 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010 12/26/2016 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010 12/31/2016 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010 1/14/2017 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241405 1/7/2017 Seeds Roasted & Salted Amport Foods Trail Mix 071725741042 4/4/2017 Raisin & Nut Amport Foods Chocolatey Nut Trail 071725713124 1/8/2017 Mix Amport Foods Dark 071725712387 1/7/2017 Chocolate Almond Amport Foods Dark 071725711854 1/2/2017 Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix Amport Foods Milk 071725711939 1/7/2017 Chocolate Peanuts Amport Foods Raisin 071725714688 1/14/2017 & Nut Trail Mix Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748003 12/3/2016 Seeds Roasted & Unsalted Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748003 1/6/2017 Seeds Roasted & Unsalted Amport Foods Yogurt 071725748034 1/8/2017 Almonds Fresh Finds Dried 411014937907 3/17/2017 Tropical Mix Gold Emblem Roasted 050428353240 1/14/2017 & Salted Sunflower Kernels Naturally Select 639277431417 3/23/2017 Chocolate & Nut Trail Mix Naturally Select Fruit 639277431455 3/15/2017 & Nut Trail Mix Naturally Select 639277187567 3/24/2017 Indulgent Trail Mix Salted Sunflower 639277286208 2/25/2017 Seeds in Shell distributed by Greenbrier 639277286208 2/28/2017 International, Inc. Salted Sunflower Seeds in Shell distributed by Greenbrier International Salted Sunflower Seeds in Shell 639277286208 3/17/2017 distributed by Greenbrier International Salted Sunflower Seeds 639277286208 3/21/2017 in Shell distributed by Greenbrier International Salted Sunflower Seeds 639277286208 4/13/2017 in Shell distributed by Greenbrier International Family Gourmet 032251046506 3/16/2017 Tropical Mix Clover Valley 071725750167 3/25/2017 Chocolatey Peanut Butter Trail Mix Hy-Vee Berry Trail 075450040593 3/19/2017 Mix Hy-Vee Dark Chocolate 075450041354 4/14/2017 Cranberry Trail Mix Hy-Vee Mountain Mix 075450016796 4/5/2017 Trail Mix Hy-Vee Mountain Mix 075450016796 4/15/2017 Trail Mix Hy-Vee Mountain Trail 075450040739 3/23/2017 Mix Hy-Vee Santa Fe Trail 075450041101 3/31/2017 Mix Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew 075450040586 4/5/2017 Honey Crunch Trail Mix K&G Cranberry Trail 708615110489 12/3/2016 Mix Smart Sense Roasted 883967300013 3/16/2017 Salted Sunflower Kernels American Importing 071725748003 1/6/2017 Company, Inc. Roasted No Salt Seeds Delish Blueberry Nut 049022880641 3/17/2017 Blend Premium Trail Mix Delish Tropical Blend 049022880634 3/17/2017 Premium Trail Mix Nice! Peanut Lovers 049022846524 4/19/2017 Trail Mix Nice! Sunflower Salted 049022832275 4/15/2017 in Shell Delish Almond Berry 049022880627 3/18/2017 Pistachio Premium Trail Mix Nature's Harvest Dark 071725749062 3/28/2017 Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix Nature's Harvest 071725711533 12/27/2016 Southwest Trail Mix Nature's Harvest 071725711533 12/30/2016 Southwest Trail Mix Nature's Harvest 071725711533 1/17/2017 Southwest Trail Mix Nature's Harvest Sunflower Kernels 071715727510 12/20/2016 Honey Roasted Nature's Harvest 071715727510 1/21/2017 Sunflower Kernels Honey Roasted Nature's Harvest 071725728074 3/31/2017 Sunflower Kernels Ranch Flavored Nature's Harvest 071725728074 4/27/2017 Sunflower Kernels Ranch Flavored Nature's Harvest Afternoon Trail Mix 071725728166 1/14/2017 Nature's Harvest 071725728791 3/16/2017 Almond Dry Roasted Sea Salted Nature's Harvest Dark 071725749314 1/6/2017 Chocolate Covered Cashews Nature's Harvest 071725727497 12/19/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 12/20/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 12/25/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 1/2/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 1/3/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 1/16/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727497 1/20/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Salted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 11/25/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 11/26/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 12/4/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 12/18/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 12/23/2016 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 1/2/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 1/14/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725727503 1/15/2017 Sunflower Kernels Roasted & Unsalted Nature's Harvest 071725728203 12/27/2016 Sweet Nut & Berry Munch Trail Mix No illnesses have been confirmed to date. Consumers who have purchased any of the above products are urged to dispose of or return the products to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any questions may call 1.800.756.5781, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST). TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and beverages with more than 50 manufacturing facilities across the United States, Canada and Italy that focuses primarily on private label products for both retail grocery and food away from home customers. We manufacture shelf stable, refrigerated, frozen and fresh products, including beverages and beverage enhancers (single serve beverages, coffees, teas, creamers, powdered beverages and smoothies); meals (cereal, pasta, macaroni and cheese and side dishes); retail bakery (refrigerated and frozen dough); condiments (pourable and spoonable dressing, dips, pickles, soups and sauces) and healthy snacks (nuts, trail mix, bars, dried fruits and vegetables). We have a comprehensive offering of packaging formats and flavor profiles, and we also offer natural, organic and preservative free ingredients in many categories. Our strategy is to be the leading supplier of private label food and beverage products by providing the best balance of quality and cost to our customers. Additional information, including TreeHouse's most recent statements on Forms 10-Q and 10-K, may be found at TreeHouse's website, http://www.treehousefoods.com. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lyft Drivers File Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on May 16 against Uber accuses the ride-share service of using phony shell accounts in hopes of hurting business for the company's top competitor, Lyft. Attorneys representing Lyft driver Ryan Smythe and "others similarly situated" filed the class-action complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber Technologies Inc. and 100 unnamed entities said to exist as "mere shells and conduits" for Uber's affairs. Mr. Smythe began driving for Lyft in September 2014, one month after accusations starting to surface concerning "Operation SLOG," an alleged Uber-sponsored campaign that involved spamming Lyft drivers with fake ride requests in an effort to drive down business. After acquiring internal documents and interviewing several of the ride-share service's former and current contractors, The Verge reported in August 2014 that Uber was indeed operating a "sabotage campaign" in which dummy Lyft accounts were being created with prepaid cellphones and credit cards and subsequently used to place fake requests with Lyft drivers. In the lawsuit, the Lyft driver claim's Uber's alleged operation amounted to unfair business practices under California law as well as intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint said Uber engaged in a "systematic course of creating fraudulent Lyft accounts from which sham orders were placed, at least in part to deprive Class members from earning income in violation of California Business and Professions Code which prohibits unfair business practice." UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Drivers' Wage Class Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Phoenix accuses Uber of paying drivers less than minimum wage. ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Recalls Amino Gold Supplements Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimate Nutrition Inc. of Farmington, CT, is recalling its dietary supplement, Amino Gold, because they may contain undeclared milk in the form of hydrolyzed whey protein. People who have allergies to milk run the risk of a serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled Amino Gold was distributed nationwide through distributors, stores, and websites. The affected product is packaged in purple bottles with a black cap. The product comes in the following forms: Product Code Size UPC Code ------- ---- ---- -------- Amino Gold #140 250 Cap 0 99071 00140 5 Capsules/1000mg Amino Gold #120 250 Tab 0 99071 00120 7 Formula/1000mg Amino Gold/1500mg #110 325 Tab 0 99071 00110 8 No illnesses have been reported to date. The current lots and expiration dates in the market are; 403122 (exp: 3-17), 405138 (5- 17), 406001 (6-17), 407067 (7-17), 508080 (8-18), 602230 (2-19), 604166 (4-19). The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the possible milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk. The investigation as to the cause of this is ongoing. Ultimate Nutrition takes all matters of dietary supplement safety very seriously, including the issue of allergens. Ultimate Nutrition is coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding this isolated event. Consumers who have purchased Amino Gold are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm EST at 1-860-409-7100 x115. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/fnU5zm UNITED FURNITURE: Previously Reached Agreement Not Honored ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division, denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in the case RACHEL BROWN HEFFERNAN BRYANT, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Cause No. 1:13-CV-00246-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.) In late 2013, factory workers at United Furniture Industries, Inc. (UFI) plants filed two separate FLSA cases. The first is the case of Carothers v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 1:13-CV- 203-DAS (Carothers), which was also the first to be resolved and the second, is the current lawsuit. In both actions, UFI employees sought recovery for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, as well as certification as a collective action under FLSA Section 16(b). The magistrate judge in the Carothers, certified the requested collective action, joined by 495 UFI employees. The magistrate judge approved a settlement agreement by the parties, and then entered a final judgment of dismissal on January 23, 2015. A motion for certification was filed in the current suit. Opposing the motion and citing the settlement agreement from Carothers, UFI maintained that the Bryant plaintiffs were precluded from seeking collective certification, as that right had been foreclosed by the earlier litigation. The court found UFI's arguments unavailing because the Bryant plaintiffs and putative class members had not opted into the Carothers suit as is required by Section 16(b). A collective action was conditionally certified, exclusive of any employees who had participated in Carothers. By October 14, 2015, after the first phase of the Bryant certification process, the "notice" or "opt-in" phase, 1,285 current or former UFI employees had joined the conditionally certified class. As of October 7, 2015, 1,029 of the 1,285 plaintiffs in this case had cashed checks distributed by the Carothers claims administrator. UFI filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs who cashed their checks executed a state-law release of their FLSA claims and are barred from continuing in the suit. Plaintiff contends no bona fide dispute as to liability existed when payment was accepted, and that any such release is invalidated by the statutory policy of the FLSA. A copy of Judge Aycock's memorandum opinion dated May 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/z3rsVZfrom Leagle.com. Rachel Brown Heffernan Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by: W. Howard Gunn, Esq. W. HOWARD GUNN & ASSOCIATES 310 S Hickory St. Aberdeen, MS 39730 Telephone: 662-369-8533 United Furniture Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by John M. Creekmore at JOHN M. CREEKMORE, ATTORNEY; Lamar Bradley Dillard -- Bdillard@mitchellmcnutt.com -- John Samuel Hill -- Jhill@mitchellmcnutt.com -- at MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS UNITED KINGDOM: Hearing Scheduled for Mau Mau Insurgency Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Owen Bowcott, writing for The Guardian, reports that compensation claims for torture, rape, wrongful detention and forced labor brought by 40,000 Kenyans who allege they were mistreated by British officials during the Mau Mau insurgency were due to be heard in the high court in London on May 23. The lawsuit against the Foreign Office is far larger than a previous class action brought by survivors of the 1950s colonial- era independence campaign. The oldest claimant is aged 91. Lawyers for the government are expected to make a last-minute application to delay the long-running case in a dispute over translation of witness statements. Approximately 1,500 claimants have died since the case was launched. Three years ago the then foreign secretary, William Hague, announced the UK was paying out œ19.9m in costs and compensation to more than 5,228 elderly Kenyans who suffered torture and abuse during the Mau Mau uprising. The admission came at the end of a test case brought by the law firm Leigh Day which established that UK courts did have jurisdiction to hear historical claims brought by those detained in military camps. While regretting the "abhorrent violations of human dignity" that took place in Kenya, Hague did not admit government liability and indicated it would defend future claims for compensation. The latest class action is being coordinated by Tandem Law, a Manchester-based law firm. The claimants will be represented in court by Simon Myerson QC. The judge, Mr. Justice Stewart, will initially consider 27 test claims -- including those of two people who have died -- to assess the range of allegations made by the entire group. Later this summer some of the survivors are due to give evidence to the court via video-link from Nairobi. The allegations relate chiefly to injuries sustained by claimants between 1952 and 1961 during the state of emergency declared by the colonial administration in the face of African resistance to British rule. Most of the assaults are said to have taken place in screening centers, prisons, detention camps and under a program known as "villagization" in Kenya's central province. Most of the claimants are from the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru tribes. The Kenyan government is not involved in the case. One test claim involves a mother whose daughter allegedly had her fingers cut off in front of her. Beatings are said to have been inflicted regularly on those detained in Manyani, Langata, Embaffaki and Athi River military camps. Kenya was finally granted independence in 1963. The Foreign Office has in the past argued that the Kenyan government, as the successor authority, should be liable for the claims. Unlike the first Mau Mau case, these new claims are not restricted to those who endured extreme physical violence. Over the emergency period, an estimated 90,000 Kenyans were killed or injured. Evidence of colonial brutality has emerged belatedly from files that were kept out of the National Archives for decades. In June 1957, one letter records, Eric Griffith-Jones, the attorney general of the British administration in Kenya, wrote to the governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, detailing the way the regime of abuse at the colony's detention camps was being refined. For the abuse to remain legal, Griffith-Jones wrote, Mau Mau suspects must be beaten mainly on their upper body. "If we are going to sin," he wrote, "we must sin quietly." The lead solicitor at Tandem Law, Freddie Cosgrove-Gibson, said: "We are disappointed that the British government continue to dispute the claims on all fronts, especially when they settled similar claims three years ago. "During this time at least 1,500 of our clients have sadly passed away, denying them the opportunity to see justice being done for the truly awful treatment they suffered during the 1952 Kenyan emergency. Every day this number continues to increase." The Foreign Office declined to comment before the opening of the trial, which is expected to run on into next year. UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Walnuts and Walnut-Containing Products -------------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Trading LLC, d/b/a Woodstock Farms Manufacturing, Edison, NJ, is voluntarily recalling a limited number of lots of conventional walnuts and walnut-containing products (see attachment for products and lot numbers) that were purchased from Gibson Farms and sold under the Nature's Promise, Woodstock, Market Basket, and Woodfield Farms brands due to a possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune symptoms. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The lot numbers are printed on the back of each retail bag. The walnut and walnut-containing products were shipped to retailers and distributors in limited quantities throughout the United States. The recall was issued as a precaution because a single sample in a finished product yielded a positive result for Listeria monocytogenes. The Company is coordinating closely with regulatory officials and has contacted its customers to ensure that any remaining recalled products are removed. No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall and no other walnuts or products under the brands are being recalled. Only the specific lot numbers and sell dates identified in the attachment are included in this recall. Consumers who have any remaining product with these lot numbers should not consume it, but rather should discard it. Consumers should retain their store receipts, packaging reflecting lot numbers or any other proof of purchase they may have. Retailers and consumers with questions may call Melissa McCullough at Woodstock Farms Manufacturing customer service at 732-650-9905, which is open 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (EST) Monday - Friday. Description Lot Best By UPC# ----------- Number Date ---- ------ ------- Nature's Promise 16082 Best By 9/17/16 8826706612 Cranberry Trail 16099 Best By 9/17/16 8826706612 Mix Net Wt. 16117 Best By 9/17/16 8826706612 12oz. Woodstock Walnut 16092 Best By 4/1/17 4256300860 Halves & Pieces 16106 Best By 4/15/17 4256300860 Net Wt. 6oz. Woodstock Cape 16079 Best By 9/17/16 4256300877 Cod Cranberry 16091 Best By 9/17/16 4256300877 Mix Net Wt. 16098 Best By 9/17/16 4256300877 10oz. 16126 Best By 11/30/16 4256300877 Market Basket 16083 Best By 3/23/17 4970540809 Walnuts Raw 16105 Best By 4/14/17 4970540809 Net Wt. 7oz. Market Basket 16106 Best By 9/17/16 4970540832 Cape Cod Cranberry Trail Mix Net Wt. 10oz. Woodfield Farms 16112 Best By 4/21/17 7523900194 Walnuts Halves & Pieces Net Wt. 2.5lbs. Nature's Promise 16093 Best By 4/2/17 8826714404 Walnuts Halves & 16110 Best By 4/19/17 8826714404 Pieces Net Wt. 7oz. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/HmeJOz VENDING NUT: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products Due to Listeria -------------------------------------------------------------- Vending Nut Company is voluntarily recalling a limited number of sunflower kernel products that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The products were packaged and sold at Vending Nut Company's Ft. Worth, TX facility between the dates of February 24, 2016 and March 9. Recalled retail items were sold in clear printed plastic packages and are marked with pack dates located on the front packages. Listed below are details regarding the recalled items: Poduct Description Size UPC Lot # Pack ------ ----------- ---- --- ----- Date ---- Vending Roasted and 16 oz. 98301- 8B6M02 02/24/16 Nut Salted 00006 Company Sunflower No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after Vending Nut Co. was notified by our supplier that the sunflower kernels used were recalled due to possible contamination of Listeria monocytogenes. Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who purchased these products may bring them back to our store for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers seeking information may email info@vendingnut.com or call 1-800-429-9260 Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Central Time. Customers should check their purchased products to confirm that none of the products are present or available for consumption. Please contact Vending Nut Co. at info@vendingnut.com to arrange for disposal or return of the product. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Jenkins" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned VICTORIA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. F. GLENN AYLOR, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-00046 (W.D. Va.), Judge Glen E. Conrad granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. Count I was dismissed without prejudice, while Counts II and III will proceed against all the defendants. Judge Conrad also denied the defendants' motion to strike portions of the complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's May 17, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/W8lPJz from Leagle.com. Victoria Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the action against the defendants Superintendent F. Glenn Aylor, Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority, and several employees at the Central Virginia Regional Jail, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical condition by denying her access to her medications. Victoria Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell J. Rotbert -- mitch@rotbertlaw.com -- Rotbert Business Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert Olin Wilson, Wilson Law PLC, Uri Nazryan, Rotbert Business Law, P.C. & James Morton Bowling, IV, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. F. Glenn Aylor, Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Christine Apple-Figgins, Jasmine Buckner-Jones, Amanda Pitts, Defendants, represented by James Morton Bowling, IV, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP. WATER HEATING: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Water Heating Technologies Corp., of Pomona, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 14,400 Gas water heaters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The water heaters have a space between the burner flange and the combustion chamber that allows flammable liquids or gases to contact burning flammable vapors inside the combustion chamber, posing a risk of fire or explosion. This recall involves Water Heating Technologies "American Standard" gas water heaters. The model numbers included in the recall begin with GN and GSN. The water heaters are white with an "American Standard" logo printed on the front. The model number is printed on a label on the side of the water heater. The water heaters were sold in 30, 40 and 50 gallon capacities. A complete list of models and serial numbers can be found on the firm's website at http://www.americanstandardwaterheaters.com/recall/. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/DqBvXb The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Plumbing contractors nationwide from May 2015 through February 2016 for between $400 and $820. Consumers should immediately stop using the gas water heaters and call Water Heating Technologies to arrange for a service technician to inspect, repair or replace the water heater free of charge. WCD KITCHEN: Recalls Kale & Edamame Salad Due to Salmonella ----------------------------------------------------------- WCD Kitchen, LLC of Fontana, California is voluntarily recalling Trader Joe's Kale & Edamame Salad (UPC 00967112), sold only in the Midwest, with a "USE BY May 05, 2016 through May 14, 2016", because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella. No illnesses have been reported to date. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The 3,763 salads possibly affected were distributed to Trader Joe's stores located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. No other lots, products or stores are affected. The salad is packaged in 10 oz. plastic clamshell and the "Use By" Date is stickered on the front of the label. See photos below. The voluntary recall was initiated by WCD Kitchen, LLC immediately after it was informed by the Kale supplier, Pearson Foods Corporation, that the Kale tested positive for the food-borne illness. Customers who have purchased the Kale & Edamame Salad may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact the company at 1-909-574-4140, 8 AM - 4:30 PM, PST, Monday-Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/dxqjLP WELL CARE: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Compounded Products -------------------------------------------------------- Well Care Compounding Pharmacy, Las Vegas, Nevada is performing a voluntary statewide recall in Nevada on all unexpired sterile compounded products due to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) concern over lack of sterility assurance. The recall impacts all sterile compounded products distributed between 01/01/2016- 04/29/2016. Administration of a sterile drug product intended to be sterile that is compromised may result in serious and potentially life- threatening infections or death. All recalled products have a label that includes the name Well Care Compounding Pharmacy, logo, drug name, and expiration date. If unsure, Customers can call the pharmacy to determine the expiration date. We have not received any reports of adverse effects or injuries to date. We are conducting this recall after an inspection conducted by the FDA. Customers that have any recalled products should immediately stop using it and contact the pharmacy to arrange for the return of any unused product. Well Care Compounding Pharmacy takes the utmost care to ensure patient safety and performing this voluntary recall. Customers with questions regarding this recall can call the pharmacy by phone (702) 553-2575 Monday through Friday 9am - 6pm PST or email at info@mywellcarepharmacy.com. Adverse reactions or quality problems experiences with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 For reporting animal adverse drug events, please follow the link to the FORM FDA 1932a found at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/uc m055305.htm Well Care Compounding Pharmacy regrets any inconvenience and disruption due to this recall on its customers, however, the safety of customers are the primary concern. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Char" Suit Remanded to Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino the case captioned VERONICA CHAR, Plaintiff, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, F/K/A/ WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. ED CV 16-0745 FMO (SPx) (C.D. Cal.). On November 19, 2015, Veronica Char filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino against Wendy's International LLC. On April 20, 2016, the defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332. Judge Olguin remanded the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pusuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c). A full-text copy of Judge Olguin's May 23, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/89jykQ from Leagle.com. Veronica Char, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti, Righetti Glugoski PC, Charles A Jones, Jones Law Firm & Kelly McInerney, Joines Law Firm. Wendy s International LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark D Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ashley Michelle Farrell -- farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP. WILLMOTT FORESTS: Court Refuses to Approve Settlements ------------------------------------------------------ John Emmerig, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., and Joshua Kang, Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for Lexology, report that the Federal Court of Australia refused to approve class action settlements in Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2016] FCA 323 due to the settlement imposing a "significant detriment" on some class members by extinguishing their individual claims or defenses, without any benefit in exchange and without adequate notice. The decision further highlighted the uncertainty in Australian class actions around the finality of a class action settlement by adding to the debate on whether a settlement bound class members in relation to all of their claims, or only claims that formed part of the common issues. The judgment drew attention to conflicts of interest that potentially arise in class actions, including conflicts between registered and non-participating class members' interests and between lawyers' interests in receiving legal fees and class members' interests in minimizing those legal costs. The judgment reinforces the need for effective notice to class members and the Court's responsibility to protect class members, including in relation to the legal fees charged. The Court also suggests a further protection through an additional opportunity to opt out of the class action once the terms of a settlement are known. Background -- Claims The applicants and class members were investors in forestry plantation managed investment schemes that failed. Originally three inter-related class actions were commenced on December 22, 2011 in relation to schemes from 2007, 2008 and 2009. In one proceeding, the claims were made against the two companies which were the responsible entities in the schemes under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) -- Willmott Forests Ltd ("Willmott Forests") and Bioforest Ltd ("Bioforest") -- and their directors. In the other two, the claims were made against the lenders -- MIS Funding No 1 Pty Ltd ("MIS") and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd ("CBA") -- which financed some of the investors into the schemes. On March 13, 2013, a fourth class action in relation to a 2010 scheme was commenced against Willmott Forests as responsible entity, the directors and a further lender, Willmott Finance Pty Ltd (with MIS and CBA, the "Lenders"). Each scheme was a long-term investment requiring investment over a period of between 15 and 25 years. The investor made an upfront, tax-deductible payment to acquire an interest in a scheme. No further fees were payable until a fee based on a percentage of the proceeds of sale of forest products following harvest was due, more than 15 years later (deferred fee model). By taking out a loan to acquire the interest, an investor could increase the tax benefits associated with the investment. None of the schemes survived to the point where the forest plantations were harvested. On September 6, 2010, receivers and managers were appointed over the assets and undertakings of Willmott Forests and its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Bioforest. On March 22, 2011, Willmott Forests and its subsidiaries were placed into liquidation. The claims in the proceedings against the responsible entities and their directors centered on omissions and misleading statements in the product disclosure statements ("PDS") that were provided to investors. In particular, the PDS did not disclose that the deferred fee model involved a significant risk because Willmott Forests had to fund the cost of planting, maintaining and harvesting the trees before it received any further fees, which meant it was dependent on the sale of interests in future schemes to fund its existing obligations. The failure of the schemes and the responsible entities meant that investors lost their investment in the schemes, received no return on the investment and, in some instances, still owed substantial monies to the Lenders. Background -- Settlement The key features of the proposed settlements were: No compensation or damages is to be paid to the class members in respect of their losses, and (i) in the case of the 2007/08/09 scheme proceedings, there is no reduction in the outstanding balances of their loans, but the Lenders grant an extension of time to make repayments for class members currently in default; or (ii) in the case of the 2010 scheme proceeding, three options are provided for the reduction of outstanding loan balances (representing various trade-offs between delaying payment and reducing the loan balance). Amounts are to be paid by the respondents, to be expended on the pro rata reimbursement of class members who are or were clients of the lawyers acting in the class action and to refund monies paid as security for costs or to cover insurance taken out: (i) in the 2007/08/09 scheme proceedings, $3.1 million is to be paid to partially reimburse a total of $6.086 million in legal costs to the law firm and approximately $2 million paid to a fund for security for costs returned to class members who had made contributions; and (ii) in the 2010 scheme proceeding, $1.408 million is to be paid, $1 million of which is to be expended to partially reimburse a total of $1.749 million in legal costs and $408,000 of which is to be expended to pay Amtrust Europe Limited for an After the Event insurance policy taken out by the applicant to cover adverse costs. The applicants in each proceeding will provide binding admissions on behalf of the class members as to the validity and enforceability of the loan agreements between the Lenders and class members ("the binding loan enforceability admissions"). The applicants in each proceeding will agree on behalf of the class members, that if a class member obtains damages or compensation in any Third Party Proceeding (as defined) and an order for contribution is made against a Lender or a related party in respect of those damages or compensation, the class member will indemnify the Lender or related party against that order for contribution ("the indemnity term"). "Third Party Proceeding" is broadly defined and includes any claim brought by the applicant or a class member against a person who is not a party to the Settlement Deed arising out of or relating to their investment in one or more of the relevant schemes. This would include financial advisors who recommended the acquisition of interests in the Schemes. The applicants in each proceeding, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class members, will provide broad releases to the respondents. The settlement took place after class members were provided with the opportunity to opt out as mandated by s 33J of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and after a "class closure" process. Pursuant to the class closure process, orders were made which provided that class members who did not satisfy the requirements for registration continued to be class members but were excluded from seeking any relief in the proceeding or any benefit from a settlement ("non-participating class members"). One of the requirements for registration in the 2007/08/09 scheme proceedings was either to make a contribution to a fund to provide security for costs or to provide information to show that the class member was financially unable to do so. As a result of these orders, about 77 percent of class members in the 2007/08/09 scheme proceedings (approximately 2,427 persons) and 52 percent of the class members in the 2010 scheme proceeding (approximately 182 persons) were not permitted to obtain the benefit of the settlements but were subject to the binding loan enforceability admissions. Loss of Individual Defenses -- Res Judicata / Anshun Estoppel The first reason for refusing the settlement put forward by Murphy J was the binding loan enforceability admissions. The admissions would be significantly detrimental for some class members because it would preclude them from defending loan enforcement proceedings by the Lenders on any basis, even in reliance on claims or defenses that were not pleaded in the class actions and which are based on a class member's individual or unique circumstances. Moreover, Murphy J also found that class members were not clearly informed that if they did not opt out they would be so precluded. Further, the proposed settlement did not allow class members an opportunity to opt out at the point of settlement. It was submitted that the binding loan enforceability admissions were fair because if the class action proceeded to judgment and was unsuccessful, the outcome would be the same by reason of Anshun estoppels or principles of abuse of process. The effect of a judgment requires resort to the principle of res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process. The principle of res judicata provides that, where an action has been brought and proceeds to judgment, no subsequent proceedings can be maintained on the same cause of action. In a similar vein, issue estoppel precludes a party from raising an issue of fact or law against another where the contrary has already been established in proceedings between the same parties or their privies. A related principle is that of Anshunestoppel, which precludes parties or their privies from raising in subsequent proceedings issues of fact or law which should have been raised and dealt with in the prior litigation. Considerations similar to those which underpin Anshun estoppel may also support a preclusive abuse of process argument. Abuse of process is "capable of application in any circumstances in which the use of a court's procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute". In the class action context, it is also necessary to apply s 33ZB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 which provides: A judgment given in a representative proceeding: must describe or otherwise identify the group members who will be affected by it; and binds all such persons other than any person who has opted out of the proceeding under section 33J. Murphy J was called on to consider the above principles in the context of judgments where their application to class actions had been discussed. The Great Southern class actions and the Timbercorp class actions were also claims by investors in failed agricultural managed investment schemes that included loans to some of the investors. The decisions were by Croft J in Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2012] VSC 338 and Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] VSC 516 ("Clarke No 4"), by Judd J in Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] VSC 569 and by Robson J in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Collins and Tomes [2015] VSC 461 ("Collins and Tomes"). In Clarke No 4, Croft J held that the binding loan enforceability admissions in that settlement were not unfair to class members because, upon judgment or settlement, class members would be barred from asserting any claims or defences that their loan agreements were unenforceable because of issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process. In Collins and Tomes, Robson J took a different approach. Robson J found that s33ZB did not create common law privies but rather "s 33ZB privies" which has an application similar to issue estoppel but not Anshun estoppel. Murphy J observed that it was common ground before him that a judgment or settlement of the class actions would bind class members to an estoppel in respect of the common claims which were pleaded, and that a judgment or settlement may bind class members to an estoppel in respect of common claims that could have been pleaded in the class actions but were not. However, his Honour did not need to decide this issue as the focus was on class members' individual claims or defenses. Further, no evidence was before the Court to allow for determination of whether Anshun estoppel or abuse of process arose. Turning to the class members' individual claims or defenses, Murphy J considered whether class members could or were required to raise their individual or unique claims or defenses within the class actions framework. Murphy J found that class members were not granted standing to make applications under ss 33Q, 33R or 33S of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Rather, these provisions allow the applicant to seek, or the Court on its own motion to make, orders for dealing with non-common issues. A class member was given standing to seek to replace a representative party that was an inadequate representative pursuant to s 33T but it did not apply to the current circumstances. More generally, requiring class members to come forward with non-common issues would undermine the goals of the class action legislation, namely to promote the efficient resolution of multiple claims and avoid inconsistent findings. Murphy J also found that it was not unreasonable for class members to have not raised their individual claims. Central to this finding was that neither the opt out notices nor the lawyers representing the class members advised them that they would or might be precluded from advancing individual claims or defenses in subsequent proceedings. Incomplete Case Preparation and the Duty of Lawyers The Court found that there were substantial difficulties in funding the proceedings which resulted in significant gaps in the preparation of the cases. In particular, no independent forensic accountant was retained to support important elements of the case. Murphy J found that this was relevant to whether the lawyers for the applicant were in a position properly to inform the Court as to the merits of the claims which then informs the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. The incomplete case preparation also was significant in that class members were not informed that the case had not been adequately prepared which "might adversely affect prospects of success at trial or the applicants' lawyers' consideration of the adequacy of a settlement offer". Murphy J's reasoning suggested that the lawyers may not have fulfilled their duties to both their clients and to class members who had not retained the lawyers. Murphy J observed that most of the registered class members entered into a Retainer Agreement so that a solicitor-client relationship arose with the effect that the lawyers had a fiduciary duty to act in their clients' interests, as well as common law duties and contractual obligations, including "obligations to properly prosecute their interests, properly prepare the proceedings, and to inform class members of any circumstances which prevented it from doing so". The lawyers, in accepting instructions to act as the solicitor in "open class" proceedings, also took on the obligation to act in the interests of all class members, not just their clients. As a result, Murphy J formed the view that the settlement should not be approved unless class members were given an informed opportunity to opt out of the settlement. Lawyers' Conflicts of Interest The Court raised as a concern the existence of potential conflicts of interest, including conflicts of duty and duty, as a result of the terms of the settlement. The first conflict was between the interests of class members who registered in the class member registration process ("registered class members") and the interests of "non-participating class members". While all class members give up their claims and are subject to the binding loan enforceability admissions, only the registered class members receive any benefit in return, being the modest benefits set out above in each settlement. Registered class members may have an interest in accepting the settlement so as to obtain the benefits on offer. However, non-participating class members have no reason for accepting such an offer. Indeed their interest was described by Murphy J as being "the proceedings continuing, at least until a settlement is reached which does not preclude them from bringing claims or defenses against the respondents based in their individual or unique circumstances, or which allows them to opt out of a settlement which they consider to be unfair". A duty-duty conflict of interest may then arise for the lawyers who are required to act in the interests of both sets of class members. Murphy J found that the settlements should not be approved until the conflicts are recognized and properly dealt with. A further conflict arises for the lawyers in relation to their interest in receiving legal fees. Legal Costs As mentioned above, the applicants' solicitors charged in total some $7.8 million in legal fees on a fixed fee basis. Under the terms of the proposed settlement deed, some $4.1 million of the settlement amount was to be distributed to reimburse class members who had paid legal costs on a pro rata basis. While Murphy J was not opposed to the reimbursement of legal costs from the settlement fund, his Honour questioned the reasonableness of the amount of legal fees charged and ordered that evidence be put before the Court on the issue. In so doing, Murphy J rejected the applicants' lawyers' threshold contention that there was no warrant to consider the reasonableness of the costs because the settlements did not provide for the lawyers to receive any amount for legal costs. His Honour held: In the present cases I am well satisfied that the Court should exercise its power to oversee the costs charged to class members. There is an inherent conflict between the interests of [the lawyers] in being paid legal costs and the interests of client class members in minimizing legal costs, or at least in paying only reasonable costs or only the costs agreed under the Retainer Agreement. In the present cases there is a pronounced information asymmetry between [the firm] and its clients in relation to costs, and the firm is in a position of particular dominance. Murphy J went on to explain that each class member client knows only the fixed fee contributions that he, she or it paid. Naturally enough, class members are unlikely to have been interested in ensuring that the legal fees were reasonable overall. Further, class members have limited or no insight into whether the lawyers undertook (properly or at all) the legal work which underpinned the firm's entitlement to charge costs. His Honour also explained that legal costs should be considered as part of the settlement approval process because the assessment of the reasonableness of legal fees may affect the real "return" to class members under the settlements if the lawyers were required to disgorge any costs that are shown to have been excessive. The Court was also taken to the approach of Croft J in Clarke No 4. In that case, the Victorian Supreme Court approved a settlement in which almost $20 million of the settlement amount was to be distributed to class members in pro rata reimbursement of the legal costs they paid. It was submitted that the authority in Clarke No 4 should be followed. Murphy J held, however, that Clarke No 4 could be distinguished because in Kelly, unlike in Clarke No 4, there was presently an objection to the reasonableness of costs and Murphy J could not be satisfied, on the basis of evidence before him, that the costs were reasonable. Alternatively, if Clarke No 4 was not distinguishable, Murphy J declined to follow it. Opportunity to Opt Out of Settlement Murphy J raised for consideration the need to allow for a second opt out opportunity for class members where the first opportunity to opt out occurred prior to the terms of the proposed settlement being made available to class members. Murphy J's suggestion was aimed at dealing with his view of the unfairness of class members being subject to the binding loan enforceability admissions in the context where class members were not informed that they would lose the ability to raise their individual claims or defenses in the original opt out notice. The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 does not expressly empower the Court to provide class members an opportunity to opt out of a settlement, but Murphy J found that such power existed pursuant to either s 33J(3) or s 33ZF. Section 33J(3) provides: The Court, on the application of a [class] member, the representative party or the respondent in the proceeding, may fix another date so as to extend the period during which a [class] member may opt out of the representative proceeding. Section 33ZF allows the Court to make any order which the Court thinks appropriate to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding. Murphy J also made reference to the U.S. position. The U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, r 23(e)(4) provides: If the class action was previously certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do so. Murphy J also cited with approval the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, in which it opines that "as a matter of fairness, a class member should have an opportunity to opt out after learning about the actual terms of a settlement". In the current case, Murphy J found that the the binding loan enforceability admissions which formed part of the settlement represented a substantial detriment to class members and the failure to provide a second opportunity to opt out was "material" to the refusal to approve the settlement. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: "Bennti" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Bennti, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Windhaven Insurance Company and Jimmy Whited, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01228-SCB-MAP (Fla. Cir., May 16, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Windhaven Insurance Company is a Florida Corporation owned by Jimmy Whited. Benni worked for Windhaven as a processor. She claims to have been denied overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq. JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS 625 E Twiggs St Ste 100 Tampa, FL 33602-3925 Tel: (813) 823-9100 Email: ashelver@johnbales.com - and - Brandon J. Hill Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Denise M. Heekin Michael L. Elkins BRYANT MILLER OLIVE, PA, Suite 2200 1 SE 3rd Ave Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 374-7349 Fax: (305) 374-0895 Email: dheekin@bmolaw.com melkins@bmolaw.com * Alabama Legislation Blunts Impact of Lisk ADTPA Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Cook, Esq., of Balch & Bingham LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that the Alabama legislature recently adopted legislation to prevent class actions in federal court under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act ("ADTPA"). As reported here last summer, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving LLC, 792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2015) that the ADTPA's prohibition on class actions does not apply in federal court. Thus, a private plaintiff could bring a class action under the ADTPA by suing in federal court. Not surprisingly, several plaintiff counsel began bringing these previously unavailable class actions following the Lisk decision. Like the consumer fraud statutes in many states, the ADTPA gives private plaintiffs a powerful claim. The ADTPA covers a broad swath of conduct - with some exceptions, it literally applies to any deceptive, misleading, or unconscionable trade practice. The statute also eliminates many of the traditional elements of causation and provides for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. A court has discretion to treble any damages award under the ADTPA upon finding a willful violation. In states were private party class actions are allowed, these statutes have been a hotbed of class action litigation. Regardless of whether these class actions have actually deterred consumer fraud, they have certainly been a boon for plaintiffs' counsel. Up until Lisk, Alabama had not seen any private-party class actions under the ADTPA because Ala.Code Sec. 8-10-10(f) expressly prohibits them: "A consumer . . . bringing an action under [the ADTPA] may not bring an action on behalf of a class." The Eleventh Circuit in Lisk determined that this prohibition was a procedural rule that only applies in Alabama state courts. Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 had no similar prohibition, the Court held that an ADTPA class action could proceed in federal court. The Alabama business community responded by supporting SB 270. Sponsored by Senator Phil Williams, SB 270 clarified the language of the ADTPA by stating that the class action prohibit is "a substantive limitation" and that "allowing a consumer or other person to bring a class action or other representative action for a violation of this chapter would abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights created by [the ADTPA]." By using this language, SB 270 directly refutes the Eleventh Circuit's claim that the class action prohibition is merely procedural. On May 12, 2016, Governor Bentley signed Senate Bill 270 into law as Act No. 2016-407. In light of this change to the ADTPA, a federal court should no longer be able to ignore Alabama's class action prohibition, thereby blunting the impact of Lisk. Greg Cook and Steven Corhern of Balch worked with the Business Council of Alabama on this legislation. * Australia's Class Action Landscape Evolving, Fed. Cases Steady ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lara Bullock, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the class action space in Australia is no doubt evolving, but there are common misconceptions about how this change is happening. If recent media reports are to be believed, Australia has seen a sharp rise in the number of class actions filed -- yet on closer inspection, the reality may be more complex than it seems. While some research points to a growing number of such matters, other reports show numbers have held steady at the Federal Court level where the majority of cases are filed. Without question, however, changes are happening in other parts of the class action landscape -- including diversification of sectors, more availability of funding and the growing influence of technology. Questionable quantity Even among experts, it is difficult to find consensus over whether class actions are in fact on the rise in Australia. Last year King & Wood Mallesons partners Moira Saville and Peta Stevenson -- peta.stevenson@au.kwm.com -- released a report titled The Review: Class Actions in Australia 2014-2015, where they found that the number of such matters filed in Australia almost doubled year on year. "There has been a relatively constant number of class actions over the past five years, although 201415 saw a significant uptick in the number of new actions filed," Ms. Saville says. The report, which takes into account class action cases filed at the Federal Court, the NSW Supreme Court and the Victorian Supreme Court, showed 33 class action suits in the 2014-15 financial year, compared to 17 in the previous year. Ms. Saville believes there are a number of factors at play that may have contributed to this increase. "There is a level of acceptance of class actions now in the business and wider community so that people are also more inclined to consider a class action when something goes wrong," she says. "The high historic settlement rate of class actions may also provide an incentive." On the other hand, there has been little change at the federal level. Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University's research paper, An Empirical Study of Australia's Class Action Regimes, updated most recently in 2014, indicates there has been no significant increase in filings at the Federal Court since Australia introduced the class action regime in 1992. It's important to note that Professor Morabito's research doesn't take in to account cases filed at the NSW Supreme Court or the Victorian Supreme court. "The research done by Professor Morabito shows the long-term average just hasn't changed," says ACA Lawyers principal Steven Lewis. "Yes, there have been peaks and troughs, but on average over time you're looking at around 15 new filings a year, and that hasn't changed for a number of years." He adds: "You'll always get years when there are more and years when there are less, but generally speaking there's been no avalanche of filings." Plaintiff firms are also quick to dismiss the idea of a pick-up in class actions. Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson backs Professor Morabito's research, and suggests that even these statistics could be overstated. "Even that probably overstates the number of class actions because what that does is count each class action issued as individual cases. But on occasions you'll have a number of class actions issued for a variety of reasons, which have to do with the same dispute and which are managed effectively as a single case," Mr Watson says. Mr. Watson points to the current class action against Volkswagen as an example of this. "We've issued three proceedings and there are other proceedings issued by another firm, but all of those cases are being managed effectively as one piece of litigation," he says. "So even though the statistics would count them as individual cases, the practical consequence of them is that really they're being managed as one." Definite diversity While the question of whether or not the number of class actions in Australia is rising is still up for debate, what is certain is that the types of claims being brought are diversifying. "We're seeing the maturity of the jurisdiction in the sense that class action firms are doing a wide range of class actions over a wide range of topics," Mr. Watson says. "It ranges from disaster-style class actions like the Queensland floods and Black Saturday bushfire cases, through to product liability type actions like the Volkswagen case, shareholder cases, and social justice style or pro bono cases such as the case on behalf of asylum seekers who were detained on Christmas Island." Mr. Watson believes this indicates that the system is functioning exactly as you would want it, with a wide variety of cases not skewed heavily in one direction or another. Mr. Lewis emphasizes that while the types of cases being run are becoming more diverse, the key areas are remaining the same. "We are getting a much wider range as people test the limits of the law," he says. "We're seeing human rights claims for example or claims against various governments." He adds: "So the base is widening but the major types of claims are still the same, and that's securities class actions or actions relating to financial services and mass torts." As well as the sectors becoming more diverse, the number of firms active in the class actions space is rising. "It's still only a very small number of firms that have the knowledge and the ability to bring the claims but some firms are fracturing, people leave and set up new firms and they take with them the knowledge," Mr. Lewis says. "You also see some firms bringing actions in the areas that they're specialists in. It's not for everyone but it's certainly an area where more firms are becoming active." Ms. Saville also believes that more commercial firms are becoming interested in running class actions, as well as international entrants arriving to take a piece of the class action pie. "When Piper Alderman brought the class actions against Lehman Brothers and Standard & Poor's a few years ago, we saw a 'commercial' law firm move in to this space," she says. "More recently we're seeing new entrants to Australia such as US law firms Squire Patton Boggs and Quinn Emanuel file actions here, either on their own or in collaboration with a local firm." Funding factor A significant factor contributing to the changing class actions landscape is the arrival of more litigation funders to the Australian market. King & Wood Mallesons partner Peta Stevenson says more than 20 funders are now active in Australia, with 16 involved in current class actions. "They are competing for actions and looking for opportunities," she says. Ms. Stevenson suggests litigation funders are also expanding their horizons, contributing to the diversification of class action suits. "In the past the funders tended to stick to securities class action, but they are now looking beyond to other types of class action suits." A drawcard for overseas funders could be Australia's robust class action regime, both at a federal level and NSW and Victorian state levels, Mr. Lewis suggests. "There's an opportunity of cases here, and the funders believe that it's a good market to be in," he says. This increase in litigation funders is a positive thing, Mr. Lewis argues, as it creates a competitive funding market. "It has had the effect long term of actually being beneficial for group members, because it is forcing down the commission charged by funders due to the increased competition," he says. "So [having] more funders is a better deal for group members for two reasons: one, it allows more cases to be funded and therefore potentially go ahead; and two, group members will be paying ultimately a smaller commission to the funder." According to Professor Morabito's research, only approximately 40 per cent of cases are funded and the remainder are being run without a funder. "The funding approach here is very strict and they'll only fund cases which they believe have merit," Mr. Lewis says. This, of course, makes it financially difficult for group members in suits that are unfunded, which is partly responsible for the current debate over contingency fees. Adjusting the bill Contingency fees -- where law firms charge a percentage of the winnings -- are not allowed under Australian law. However, attitudes are beginning to shift. "I think the historic reasons for not having [contingency fees] have all fallen away and there's really no proper basis to prohibit them," Mr. Lewis says. "The major concern has always been stated to be that contingency fees would encourage unmeritorious litigation but, like any piece of litigation, solicitors are officers of the court and their primary duty is to the court." Mr. Lewis believes there are already sufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that if contingency fees were introduced they wouldn't be abused, but said further restraints could be introduced, such as a percentage cap. Mr. Watson is of the same mindset, seeing it as a question of equality. While he believes the growth in litigation funding has increasingly allowed plaintiffs and defendants to run cases on equal terms, the next step is introducing contingency fees. "We think contingency fees can be introduced with appropriate safeguards, to ensure that there are no outbreaks of unmeritorious claims," he says, echoing Mr. Lewis's thoughts. "But we also think that were contingency fees introduced, clients in class actions would substantially benefit from the competition that's offered to litigation funding." Mr. Watson says that if Maurice Blackburn had been able to conduct class actions on a contingency basis through 25 per cent fee over the last 10 years or so, the claimant group that the firm represented across nine funded class actions would have been $90 million better off in a collective sense. "We think there's a real and palpable economic benefit which will be delivered to group members in class actions if contingency fees are introduced and we really think that's one of the key ways in which the system could be made better," he says. In December 2014, the Productivity Commission voiced its support for contingency fees. The Law Institute of Victoria also threw its support behind the proposal in March this year. "We are hopeful that policy makers will embrace the need for change and introduce contingency fees with appropriate safeguards, and we think now is the time to do that," Mr. Watson says. By contrast, Ms. Stevenson is not in favor of allowing firms to bill in this way. She is joined by the Law Council of Australia, which recently decided to back away from a proposal to introduce contingency fees. "Those who support the introduction of contingency-fee billing argue that it promotes access to justice for plaintiffs who cannot afford to bring a legitimate claim under current billing models," Ms. Stevenson says. "This logic does not translate well into the context of major class action claims, where private funding is now widely available in Australia and the claimants often include large institutional shareholders." In her view, permitting plaintiff class action lawyers to charge contingency fees would most likely lead to a further increase in the number of class actions, and the number of firms active in the space. "Although it would enable competition between litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers by providing increased choice for potential plaintiffs, it is also likely to increase the number of law firms trying their hand at class actions," she says. Ms. Saville adds: "If contingency fees are introduced in Australia, there is no doubt that class actions will become more lucrative for plaintiff lawyers." Looking to the future Technology is infiltrating everything we do and it's no different when it comes to the way class actions are pursued. Kylie Petersen, e.law international's director of consulting and services, says: "Technology is a factor in all aspects of our personal and professional lives, and has certainly led to a substantial increase in the volume of potentially relevant information for any proceedings." E-discovery tools have allowed plaintiff lawyers to go through large documents during the discovery stage, while online management systems have made communication with members a lot simpler. "Technology is a necessary element in the effective management of class action litigation, rather than being the driver of those actions per se," Ms. Petersen says. Ms. Petersen has found technology facilitates the management of class action data in a way that isn't feasible using traditional, linear document review and organization techniques. "This is largely driven by the fact that class action evidence is typically electronically sourced information and is voluminous," she says. "From this perspective, class action litigation is like any other large scale litigation, with the added need to also manage data for the class members." Like everything these days, data management needs to be cost- effective for both plaintiff and defendant firms and this cannot be achieved without the utilization of appropriate technology, she argues. On the other hand, Mr. Lewis believes that while important, technology hasn't had a major impact on the way class action cases are run. "It's not as if you have to use technology any differently to the way you would use it normally in litigation, so it's not a major driver of any change at this stage," he says. Mr. Lewis suggests the major change over the last two years has been the move to online registration, which is particularly beneficial for class actions involving large sign-ups during the book build stage. "Under the Legal Profession Act and various other legislations, a group member can enter into a retainer and a funding agreement online now, rather than the old way of having it sent out via mail or email, scanning it, signing it and sending it back." He continues: "It can all be done online now, as you would for your driver's license or your home insurance, it's no different." Looking to the future, Mr. Lewis believes technology will continue to be a tool used by all lawyers for all types of litigation, including class actions, but to what extent it will change the way class actions are run remains unknown. While Mr. Lewis's firm, ACA Lawyers, recently secured funding from JustKapital for their class action against rival law firm Slater and Gordon, he flagged the outcome of shareholder class actions as another unknown. To date, no shareholder class action matter has gone to a judgment. "The big issue for both plaintiff and defendant law firms in shareholder class actions is the issue of causation, or whether the Australian courts are ready to embrace the concept of indirect causation, so that's one issue for the future," he says. Mr. Lewis believes cases are going to become more heavily defended in the coming years, and while more firms may try to get in on the action, he says, class actions aren't for everyone. "Some solicitors without the knowledge and expertise may find the going very difficult if they try to bring claims without having properly prepared them," he says. "I think there's a warning for naive people who think they can just jump in and run a class action. * Class Action Lawyers See Spike in Wage-and-Hour Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that ask New Jersey class action practitioners what's keeping them busy, and the answers of course will vary. But one topic comes up consistently: wage-and-hour litigation. That area, both in state and federal court, "has never been busier," and it has sustained a high level of activity for three years or more, according to Christine Amalfe, who chairs the employment and labor law group at Gibbons in Newark. Plaintiff-side attorney Kevin Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- who co-chairs the class action team at Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, agreed. "I'm still seeing a lot of wage-and-hour litigation," he said. "I think it's continued unabated." Particularly prominent are employee classification issues -- an area still in the early stages of a shakeout, according to Ms. Amalfe, who pointed to last year's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Hargrove v. Sleepy's LLC. There, the panel -- relying on a January 2015 interpretation it solicited from the New Jersey Supreme Court -- remanded a putative class action and instructed the district court below to apply a three-part test to determine whether Sleepy's delivery workers are independent contractors or employees under state law. "Frankly, after that case was decided, there was a big spike in New Jersey state law-based misclassification cases," Ms. Amalfe said. "Some of the complaints even mention Sleepy's." One fairly recent example: A New Jersey federal judge last September approved a settlement requiring Macy's to pay $2.8 million to a class of delivery drivers who claimed they were improperly classified as independent contractors. (Of that sum, $933,000 went to plaintiffs lawyers, including Harold Lichten and Anthony Marchetti Jr.-- who also represented the putative class in Sleepy's, the Law Journal reported.) But, according to Ms. Amalfe, delivery drivers make up just one category of possible class claimants. The New Jersey Supreme Court "started down the path as to what the test was," she said. "That test is very fact-sensitive. How the facts are going to be applied to the law remains to be seen." "That's where I think we're going to see new law develop, and that's going to take a few years. . . . I think you're going to see cases based on categories of workers." Salespeople, equipment servicers and outsourced information- technology professionals all make out possible classes, Ms. Amalfe said. Jed Marcus -- jmarcus@bressler.com -- co-chair of the labor and employment law practice group at Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham Park, said "this is a ruling for better or worse that is applicable to classification issues across all industries." He mentioned salespeople and call center workers as potential plaintiffs. * Frederick County Financial Advisers React to New Fiduciary Rule ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Jones, writing for The Frederick News-Post, reports that some financial advisers in Frederick County welcomed the U.S. Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule, which will require those who provide retirement advice to put their clients' interests before their own. The rule, which was announced in April, will not be fully implemented until January 2018. It will hold retirement advisers to the fiduciary standard rather than the current suitability one, which allows advisers to promote investments deemed suitable, even if other cheaper options are available. David Urovsky, founder of Wealth Advisors Group in Frederick, favored the new rule, saying it will increase transparency and trust between retirement advisers and clients. He added the rule will also benefit investors seeking professional help, saying this ensures advisers will act in their best interests. A regulatory impact analysis conducted by the Department of Labor estimated families with Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs, would save more than $40 billion over 10 years under the new rule. However, some critics said the rule does not provide enough protection for investors, and could lead to an influx of class- action lawsuits as the rule's meaning becomes defined, according to an article published in Forbes. David Morders, a managing partner at Key Financial Group LLC in Frederick, echoed Mr. Urovsky, saying the new federal rule will elevate the industry and benefit the local community. "It's going to affect everyone in a good way," Mr. Morders said. "It gets all the hidden fees out in the open . . . and makes it much more transparent." The new Department of Labor rule will also require retirement advisers to disclose conflicts of interest, namely when they get paid by certain companies after their clients invest with those specific firms. Messrs. Urovsky and Morders said they expect the new rule to have a minimal effect on their companies, both saying their firms already operate at the fiduciary standard and hold themselves to that higher standard. However, Mr. Urovsky said this may have a larger impact on brokers in the area; some may have to change their policies and regulations to comply with the Department of Labor's new rule, he said. A statement issued in April by LPL Financial, which is associated with Key Financial Group, said the firm is working toward compliance and will begin implementing changes as soon as it can. "In particular, we are encouraged by the increased time frame for implementation, the ability to easily enter into the Best Interest Contract with our existing clients, and the freedom to recommend any assets that are appropriate to help investors save for retirement," the April 6 press release read. The Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE, will allow retirement advisers to collect commission on investors' retirement plans, but the adviser must disclose conflicts and act in the client's best interest. Mr. Urovsky said he worried some companies may take advantage of this exemption, and hoped the federal government develops a way to enforce and oversee the rule to prevent exploitation. "That's the hope and my expectation," Mr. Urovsky said. Mr. Urovsky said he also worried an "unintended consequence" of the new rule may be that retirement advisers no longer want to work with younger, smaller investors, given the amount of work required to meet the fiduciary standard, leaving this demographic with limited options for professional advice. For these investors, Mr. Urovsky said he believes there are three choices. The first is they could do it themselves, which is "not as daunting a task as it was 10 to 15 years ago," he said. The second would be to turn to robo-advisers. And the third would be to find advisers without investment minimums. * Illinois Biometric Law Sparks Wave of Privacy Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that an Illinois biometric law is sparking a wave of class actions In entertainment, the fame of one's face is valuable. So much so that one Israeli company offers an app called Skakash that allows its users to point an iPhone camera at a television to reveal the name of the celebrity on the screen. Elsewhere, insurance companies take body scans of actors just in case they die in the middle of production. There's even a prediction out there that one day, film studios could forgo the cost of hiring A-list actors and "license the rights to their scanned faces and paste that data onto a digital puppet animated by the movements of another actor." But as the entertainment industry moves into the next frontier, how might biometric privacy factor? On May 18, a tech company that's famous for letting its users send messages that vanish quickly was sued for storing biometric data. The defendant is Snapchat, and according to a proposed class action, the company is violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting tens if not hundreds of millions of "face templates" so that users can add special effects to their selfies using the "Lenses" feature. The Illinois law was enacted in 2008 upon the appearance of finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations and school cafeterias. There was growing concern of how biometric identifiers could be misused. In the past year, though, this statute has captured the attention of class-action attorneys. Much like the spate of lawsuits targeting entertainment companies over the Video Privacy Protection Act, there have been a growing number of class actions over biometric privacy. And they are proving a nuisance for defendants. In April, Shutterfly settled a lawsuit after a judge refused to accept its argument that the Illinois law's exemption on photographs left it immune from claims. Two weeks ago, a judge rejected Facebook's argument that its terms of service meant that it was only bound by California and federal laws. Google is also facing a biometric suit. And it's not just tech companies. The Illinois law has already hit the outer reaches of the entertainment industry. Last October, video game maker Take-Two Interactive was hit with a putative class action over its NBA 2K15 and NBA 2K16 games. It's alleged in the complaint that Take-Two had failed to obtain informed consent from those using PS4 and Xbox cameras to scan their facial geometry to create personable basketball player avatars. The case is being litigated in New York thanks to a forum clause in the user agreement, but that's not stopping the judge from examining whether Take-Two is violating Illinois' biometric statute by collecting and storing face scans. Interestingly, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could impact these lawsuits. In Spokeo v. Robins, the high court ruled that to have standing, plaintiffs must show an injury that is both "concrete and particularized." In other words, merely showing a company is storing biometric data might not be enough. There's got to be concrete harm, whatever that means. The Supreme Court kicked it back to a lower appeals court to examine. Just a day after it did so, Take-Two told its judge about the Spokeo development. Take-Two has a pending motion that's premised on the argument that because there's no allegation that NBA 2K16 users have been "aggrieved" by biometric collection, the lawsuit should be dismissed. How actors and actresses might use the statute to protect against, say, Google Glass users identifying them in public through a facial recognition app is anyone's guess. And while it might be premature to say that studios could get in trouble for scanning actors during production, it's certainly bears watching. Says tech attorney Venkat Balasubramani, "Entertainment companies that deal with likeness should definitely be aware of this." * Labor Protections Need for Independent Contractors, Warren Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Pollak, writing for Breitbart, reports that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is taking on the companies that make up the "gig economy" -- though they provide the jobs, and services, that are increasingly popular among the young, "progressive" Americans who are the core of Ms. Warren's support. In a speech to the left-wing New America Foundation, Ms. Warren argued that -- without killing companies like Uber -- labor protections needed to be extended to the independent contractors who form the core of those companies' workforce. Ms. Warren said: "It's exciting -- and very hip -- to talk about Uber and Lyft and Taskrabbit, but the promise and risks of these companies isn't new. For centuries, technological advances have helped create new wealth and have increased GDP. But it is policy -- rules and regulations -- that will determine whether workers have a meaningful opportunity to share in that new wealth." "At the same time that the bargain with workers has become increasingly one-sided for millions of independent contractors and hourly employees, yet another part of the basic economic bargain has also begun to fray. The safety net -- unemployment insurance, workers comp, Social Security -- hasn't been updated to fill in the holes that employers have created. Temporary workers, contract workers, seasonal workers, permatemps, and part-time workers rarely have access to these benefits, which means that the workers who most need that safety net are least likely to have it. "The gig economy didn't invent any of these problems. In fact, the gig economy has become a stopgap for some workers who can't make ends meet in a weak labor market. The much-touted virtues of flexibility, independence, and creativity offered by gig work might be true for some workers under some conditions, but for many, the gig economy is simply the next step in a losing effort to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits are floating to the top 10%." Ms. Warren proposed that every worker -- including independent contractors in the "gig economy" -- be required to pay into Social Security. She suggested that every company be required to protect independent contractors with catastrophic insurance. And she said that independent contractors should be entitled to paid leave. She added that "every worker should have the right to organize -- period. Ms. Warren did not explain how these policies would work without raising costs for companies, or making it more difficult for would-be independent contractors to find opportunities. Nor did Warren address the role of regulations in stifling economic growth and creating downward pressure on middle class employment and wages over the past several decades. She did, however, cite Obamacare as a success story for workers who might not otherwise have health insurance -- though many young people are electing to pay the IRS an annual fine rather than purchase gold-plated policies on government websites. Unions' efforts to organize Uber drivers have proved unsuccessful. Last month, the company settled class action lawsuits and cleared the legal pathway for it to treat its drivers as independent contractors. Ms. Warren says that those contractors must also be protected, and that the lack of more widespread protections is part of what is pushing them to drive for Uber in the first place. * New CFPB Rules No Major Impact on Local Community Banks --------------------------------------------------------- David Falchek, writing for The Times-Tribune.com, reports that a new federal rule that would give bank customers greater ability to participate in class-action lawsuits drew criticism from the industry, but local community banks aren't much worried. Small bank officials say their scale and more folksy approach keeps them out of court more effectively than crimping the rights of their customers in small print. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wants to restore banking customers' rights to participate in class-action lawsuits by ending a common banking practice of using binding arbitration, a clause tucked into fine print on loans, credit cards and other financial products, in a way to prevent class-action lawsuits. Most consumers don't bother to read through such agreements and often don't know they've signed away their right to sue their bank. The new rule prohibiting arbitration clauses from barring class- action suits could go into effect by next year. Major financial industry lobbying groups have criticized the move, saying it could cost financial service providers billions of dollars. But small bank groups, such as the Independent Community Bankers of America, don't have a position yet and had to survey members to get an idea how many use the arbitration clause or see it as valuable. When asked, local community bank officials weren't even sure if binding arbitration was included on basic financial products, such as checking and savings. With the exception of boilerplate credit and debit card contracts and commercial financial products, which are not affected by the new regulations, retail banking customers getting basic financial services are not signing away their right to sue the bank. But to be sure, bank customers should scrutinize their applications and contracts or ask a banking officer if they have an arbitration requirement. "This rule will affect the very large banks and financial companies which have a big exposure in the event of a class action lawsuit," said Chuck Hangen, chief operating officer at ESSA Bank. "Arbitration is more efficient from the bank's point of view, but I've been with the bank four years and I'm not aware of someone suing us over a business practice or having to go to arbitration with a commercial customer." Jonathan Grande, vice president of Credit Administration for Peoples Security Bank, said the impact of the rule won't be very great on the bank, since it doesn't apply to commercial financial products. That's where he feels small banks face the greatest exposure. "If we use arbitration clauses, it is limited," he said. "Maybe on credit cards, but even that portfolio isn't that great." Robert Edgerton, chief executive officer of Luzerne Bank, wasn't sure whether his bank used arbitration clauses. Small banks use software packages that offer canned contract language, he said. Either way, he said the bank can stay out of court by communication and customer service. "From time to time, I'll call a customer and calm him down," Mr. Edgerton said. "Customers perceive a call from the president as a big deal and it shows them that their issue and their business is important." In some cases, however, an arbitration clause is an important component for the bank protecting its assets and shareholders. Jim Bone, the chief financial officer of First National Community Bank said the arbitration rule isn't as much about keeping the bank customer from suing the bank as it is giving the bank a quick way to make itself whole. The bank uses the binding arbitration clause on commercial financial products. "In a business when things go south -- and they can go south very quickly -- and, when we've been harmed we want to accelerate the process in recouping our money," Mr. Bone said. "We are interested in getting our money back -- not getting jury awards or court damages -- so we don't have to go to court." Even on commercial products, small banks don't always feel the need for arbitration clauses. Dunmore-based Fidelity Bank has a jury trial waiver as part of commercial accounts in the event of a legal dispute. The bank doesn't want to be a defendant to face possible jury damages. Under the terms of the proposed rule, banks that use binding arbitration clauses will have to report how many and the outcome. Up until know, the outcomes were secret. ********* 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 * * *