/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160602.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 2, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 110
Headlines
ABILITY INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Automated Calls
ADT SECURITY: Faces Class Suit Over Burglar Alarms
AHB SALES: "Stampolis" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
AT&T MOBILITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
AUSTRALIA: Curtis Island Bechtel Workers Can't Sue as Group
AVVO: Judge Okays Lead Plaintiffs Swap in Class Action
BATTERYWORX INC: Faces "Van Den Berg" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BLUE CROSS: American Surgical Files Class Action in Texas
BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective i3 REx Models
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 24 Lawsuits in Conn. Super Ct.
CANADA: Newfoundland Moose-Collision Class Action Appeal Tossed
CANADA: Inmates Sue Over "Deplorable" Ottawa Jail Conditions
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Class Action Mulled Over Gogma Derailments
CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action for $9 Million
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Court Wants Class Action Complaint Revised
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Directors Win Dismissal of Investors' Suit
CHICAGO, IL: City Attorneys Seek Dismissal of Water Class Action
CONAIR CORP: S.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Czuchaj"
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Court Rules on Discovery Bid in "Wilson"
DAIMLER AG: Faces "Munro" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
DEUTSCHE BANK: July 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DIRECTV: Antitrust Suits Over NFL Sunday Ticket Games Combined
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Partly Allowed Supplemental Evidence
DOW CHEMICAL: Has $375MM Deal with Colorado Homeowners
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Artists' Class Suit Over Wages May Proceed
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settles Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Blaha" Action Claims
FIRSTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freilich" Action Claims
FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Class. Cert. Bid Filed 7 Months Late
FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Judge Revives Gun Owners' Privacy Suit
GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Henig" Suit Claims
GENERAL MILLS: Class Cert. Ruling in Contamination Suit Reversed
GENUINE TITLE: Md. Appeals Court Weighs In on RP Section 14-127
GLK FOODS: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Jimenez"
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System "Unconstitutional," Suit Says
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Class Action Over Discount Coupon Confusion
HOMEWOOD FLOSSMOOR: Sued in Illinois Over Unlawful Suspensions
JAY-JAY CABARET: Court Conditionally Certifies "Racey" Suit
JAY PEAK: Owner Operators Face Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
KMART CORP: Settles FLSA Class Actions for $3.8 Million
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Braginton" Sues Over Faulty Product
LAWN MASTERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Wertz" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces New Securities Class Suit Over 2014 IPO
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of "Moyle" Claims
LINCARE INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Culley" Moved to June 30
LONG BEACH: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Allows Subclass to Intervene in "Smith"
MACY'S WEST: Faces Class Suit Over False Discounts
MDL 1827: N.D. Cal. Judge Closes Antitrust Litigation
MDL 2555: Coca Cola Must Defend Against Labeling Suit
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Retired Players Snubbed by Alumni Association
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Fails to Dismiss "Cain" Suit Over Court Fees
NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Alleges Securities Law Breach
PERRIGO COMPANY: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
PICK AND EAT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PUDA COAL: Appellants' Expert Witness Not "Expert" at All
R&D GLOBAL: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAMCO PROTECTIVE: "Bridges" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Pays $1.25MM in Class Action Attorney Fees
RUBY TUESDAY: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
S.S. SKIKOS: Court Grants Final Approval to "Meza" Settlement
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Wells
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Tosses Suit Over Valeant Merger
SHAGORIKA RESTAURANT: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay OT
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Videotaped Women Giving Birth, Suit Says
SLM CORPORATION: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
SNAPCHAT INC: Illegally Uses Users' Biometrics, Action Claims
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Pinkney"
SUBARU OF AMERICA: NHTSA Records 90 Outback Consumer Complaints
SUBARU OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Crosstrek Engine Lights Defect
UN COAST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ubah" Suit Claims
SUNRUN INC: "Baker" Case Removed to Northern District of Calif.
TEXAS EQUIPMENT: "Stipp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TRANSCARE CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Pena"
U.S. QUALITY: Conditional Class Cert. in "Harter" Denied
U.S. SECURITY: Faces "Bailey-Thomas" Suit Over FLSA Violation
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bruster" Sent to Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration of Surge-Pricing Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Stefanovic Dismisses Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Health Insurance Lobby Mulls Obamacare Suit
UTZ QUALITY: Sued Over Dirty Potato Chips "All Natural" Claims
VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Probation Fees
WALT DISNEY: Calif. Judge Wants Investors' Suit Revised
WELLS FARGO: Settles Genuine Title Class Action
WESTERN POWER: Elderly Woman Added as Class Action Defendant
YAPSTONE INC: Response Deadline on Dismissal Bid Moved to June 7
* SA Silicosis Class Action Ruling to Impact Local Common Law
* Bais Yaakov Files Seven Spam Fax Lawsuits
* Spike in Shareholder Class Actions Very Important Issue
* 401(k) Plan Sponsors Focus on Fees to Lessen Class Action Risks
*********
ABILITY INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 25 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Ability Inc. ("Ability" or the "Company") common stock during the
period between September 8, 2015 and April 29, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 25, 2016. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or Mario Alba Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-
4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ability/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Ability and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ability provides tactical communications intelligence solutions
for government agencies, military forces, and law enforcement and
homeland security agencies worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
materially misstated the Company's business metrics and financial
prospects, including, but not limited to, failing to disclose
that: (a) the Company had materially overstated its income by
failing to account for commissions; (b) the Company had materially
overstated its operating results by improperly recognizing revenue
on multiple element sales transactions; (c) the Company had a
material weakness in its internal controls over financial
reporting and disclosure controls and that such controls were
ineffective; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2013 and
2014 were materially false and misleading and not prepared in
accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
On September 8, 2015, Ability issued a joint press release with
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corporation ("Cambridge") announcing
the execution of a definitive agreement under which Ability would
merge with Cambridge. On December 23, 2015, Ability announced
that the merger with Cambridge had closed. As a result of the
merger, Cambridge changed its name to Ability Inc. and the
Company's ordinary shares and warrants began trading on the
NASDAQ.
On May 2, 2016, Ability announced its financial results for the
fourth quarter and full-year 2015. The Company also announced
that it would be restating its consolidated financial statements
as of December 31, 2014 and for the two years in the period then
ended. In reaction to these announcements, on May 2, 2016, the
price of Ability common stock fell $2.42 per share, or 33%, to
close at $4.90 per share, on heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Ability common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
U.S. and international institutional investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for the last two years.
ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Automated Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC, and Does 1-
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:16-cv-01025 (C.D.
Cal., May 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
placing calls to consumers' cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system.
Account Discovery Systems, LLC operates a collection agency based
in Amherst, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
S. Beverly Dr., #725
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
ADT SECURITY: Faces Class Suit Over Burglar Alarms
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Diego claims ADT Security Services' home security system
cannot detect the sound of breaking tempered glass.
AHB SALES: "Stampolis" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STAMPOLIS et al v. AHB SALES, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62447 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Joan A Lenard issued an order on May 23,
2016, granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a
Collective Action; and denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim.
Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). The Court held that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a
plaintiff is required to plead "enough facts to state a plausible
basis for the claim" and cannot rely upon mere "labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action." Gonzalez v. Old Lisbon Rest. & Bar L.L.C. , 820 F.
Supp. 2d 1365, 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To state a claim for
unpaid overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), a plaintiff
must allege that: (1) he was an employee who worked unpaid
overtime, and (2) the employer knew or should have known of the
overtime work. See Bailey v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc. , 776 F.3d
797, 801 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for
Bibb Cnty. , 495 F.3d 1306, 131415 (11th Cir. 2007)). Knowledge
may be imputed to the employer when its supervisors or management
"encourage [ ] artificially low reporting."
In this case, Judge Lenard explained, Plaintiffs' Complaint and
statements of claim sufficiently allege both elements of an unpaid
overtime claim. Plaintiffs allege that they were non-exempt sales
employees who regularly worked 60-70 hours per week. Plaintiffs
also alleged that management actively encouraged them to work long
hours by punishing individuals who, for example, took a lunch
break. These allegations are sufficient, as this stage, to prevent
dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is denied.
The Court also noted that the Eleventh Circuit recommends a two-
tiered approach to certifying a collective action under Sec.
216(b). See CameronGrant v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc. , 347
F.3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l
Life Ins. Co. , 252 F.3d 1208, 1218 (11th Cir. 2001)). The Court
held that, "We are at the first stage commonly known as the
"notice stage" or "conditional certification." At this stage, the
Court must determine whether there are other employees who desire
to opt-in and whether those employees are similarly situated. See
Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1258 (11th
Cir. 2008). Whether conditional certification is appropriate is
decided using a "fairly lenient standard." Hipp , 252 F.3d at
1218. In this case, it is clear that there are additional
employees who desire to opt-in. Since this case was filed, ten
other employees have filed consents to join this action.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing that
the proposed class members are similarly situated. Plaintiffs have
alleged that all of the potential members worked as "hourly plus
commission" sales representatives for the Defendant. These
Plaintiffs sold insurance products over the phone. At this early
stage, these allegations satisfy the similarity requirement.
Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a
Collective Action is granted."
The also Court approved the proposed Notice and proposed Consent
Form. Notices should be mailed to all potential opt-in plaintiffs
on or before August 5, 2016, and all consent forms are due on or
before October 7, 2016. Per the Court's previous Order granting
the Parties an extension of time to file their Joint Scheduling
Report and Joint Consent Form to the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate Judge, those filings are now due on or before June 7,
2016.
On May 27, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; and
clarifying the Order Granting Motion for Conditional Certification
of a Collective Action.
That same day, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint.
On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion to File a
Second Amended Complaint to add Defendant's corporate parent as a
party. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which
requires that leave to amend be "freely given," the Court granted
the Motion. Plaintiffs must separately file their Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Local Rule 15.1.
Defendant(s) have until June 10, 2016, to file an answer or
response.
Judge Lenard held that the Court's Order conditionally certifying
a collective action was limited to employees at Defendant's Fort
Lauderdale call center. At the time the Motion was decided,
Defendant represented that it only had employees at the Fort
Lauderdale location and Plaintiffs had only come forward with
allegations related to the Fort Lauderdale call center. If
Plaintiffs wish to seek certification of a nation-wide collective
action after filing their Second Amended Complaint, they must file
a separate motion for the Court's consideration. That Motion must
be filed on or before June 15, 2016, and must be based on more
than mere speculation.
Defendant is represented by Derek H. Sparks --
Derek.Sparks@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, P.C.; Christina
Marie Kennedy -- ckennedy@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner LLP;
John Stanley Lord, Jr. -- jlord@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner;
and Jenna Rinehart Rassif -- Jenna.Rassif@jacksonlewis.com -- at
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Plaintiffs are represented by Richard Bernard Celler --
richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com -- at Richard Celler Legal, P.A.
AT&T MOBILITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Rodriguez and Aden Khachadoorian Mamore, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility
Services, LLC, AT&T, a business entity of unknown form, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG16816239 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.
AT&T Mobility Services, LLC provides wireless voice and data
communications services and products to individual, business, and
government users in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
AUSTRALIA: Curtis Island Bechtel Workers Can't Sue as Group
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Spelitis, writing for The Observer, reports that a TAX law
expert says workers affected by the Australian Taxation Office's
audit being carried out on Curtis Island Bechtel workers can't
pursue legal action as a group.
As the audit on thousands of workers deepens, there is a growing
discussion on dedicated social media pages among those affected,
around legal action against some accountants, or against the ATO.
But Think Legal Principal Paul Flintoft, who has previously worked
at the tax office, said the case doesn't fit within the scope of a
class action because each taxpayer's circumstances are unique.
Instead, he says those affected should go to a different
accountant for a second opinion on whether the claims were
legitimate, and then seek legal advice.
"Those workers need advice on how to extricate themselves from the
situation," Mr. Flintoft said.
"Because going forward, those individuals' returns will now be
flagged in the tax office's records as 'high risk' and the sooner
the issue is resolved the better."
He said if the issue can't be resolved with the tax office, each
worker would need to pursue legal action as an individual,
although that could involve approaching one lawyer as a group and
putting forward a test case.
One accountant has already started legal action in relation to the
Bechtel audit.
Corporate Accountants will go before the Australian Administration
Tribunal in June for a mediation hearing defending claims the tax
office has labelled "incorrect" following a formal objection from
a taxpayer.
That's the path Mr. Flintoft, who has seen similar situations
before, recommended saying if workers disagree with the ATO's
adjustments, they need to lodge objections.
"That's the only way to get it changed," Mr. Flintoft said.
"I'm not surprised this relates to a specific group from
Gladstone.
"Once one person who works in an industry receives a larger
return, they tell people and then everyone will go and see the
same agent.
"They'll get that same deduction for three or four years until the
ATO decides to do a 'project'."
AVVO: Judge Okays Lead Plaintiffs Swap in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that faced
with the possibility the class action lawsuit could be transferred
to a court more than 2,000 miles away in the Pacific Northwest,
the lawyers suing online attorney directory Avvo have swapped in a
different Chicago attorney, who also is the son of a once-powerful
Chicago alderman, to replace the original named plaintiff, whose
history with Avvo could have triggered provisions in Avvo's user
agreement, which could have kicked the case out of Chicago federal
court and into a court in Avvo's home turf in Seattle.
On May 17, attorney Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., and other attorneys
with the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago, filed an amended
complaint in Chicago federal court, substituting John Vrdolyak as
the lead named plaintiff in the class action originally brought by
plaintiff Moria Bernstein.
That case, filed in February in Cook County Circuit Court, had
alleged Avvo profits from sharing her information and that of
potentially thousands of other lawyers without their permission.
Bernstein operates the Law Offices of Moria Bernstein, a solo
family and real estate law practice in Chicago.
Her complaint centered on Avvo's business model, under which she
alleged Avvo created a legal directory by scouring public records,
such as bar admissions and other court and regulatory sources,
"without any input, involvement or consent of the attorneys listed
in the directory."
While Avvo does not charge attorneys listed in the directory, it
does offer them the opportunity to pay for "sponsored listings,"
which place their name, photo, contact information and "Avvo
Rating" score, on the profile page of a non-paying attorney
practicing the same legal category in the same geographic area,
essentially advertising their services on the pages of their
direct competitors.
Ms. Bernstein said Avvo's actions misappropriated her identity
"for commercial purposes," in violation of Illinois' Right of
Publicity Act. The penalty for violating the act is either actual
damages and profits derived from the unauthorized use or $1,000
per violation, which ever is greater.
Ms. Bernstein's lawsuit had requested an injunction forcing Avvo
to stop profiting from the profiles of non-paying attorneys, as
well as monetary relief to be determined at trial, plus punitive
damages and attorney fees.
In response, Avvo removed the case to Chicago federal court. Then,
in April, Avvo filed a motion asking the court to transfer the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, which has courthouses in Seattle and Tacoma. In that
filing, Avvo had noted Ms. Bernstein, while not paying to sponsor
or upgrade her Avvo profile, had "claimed" the profile -- an act
which required consenting to the Avvo user agreement. A provision
in that agreement included forum selection language, which
required all disputes between Avvo and its users to be handled in
Seattle's federal courts.
Ms. Bernstein's attorneys then responded to Avvo's request with a
request of their own, to amend the lawsuit to drop Bernstein as
the case's lead plaintiff, and substitute Mr. Vrdolyak, a Chicago
lawyer who had not claimed his Avvo profile nor consented to the
Avvo user agreement.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman signed off on the
substitution, also on May 17, accepting the amended complaint.
Two days later, Avvo withdrew its motion to transfer the case.
John Vrdolyak is the son of Edward Vrdolyak, a powerful Chicago
politician and lawyer, who had served as alderman and head of the
Cook County Democratic Party, before clashing with former Chicago
Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s and switching allegiances to
the Republican Party. After unsuccessfully seeking election as
Cook County Circuit Clerk and mayor of Chicago, Mr. Vrdolyak
returned to private law practice at the Vrdolyak Law Group, of
Chicago, a firm in which his three sons, including John, also
serve as partners.
According to his biography posted on the Vrdolyak firm's website,
John Vrdolyak lives in the suburbs of Chicago and previously
worked at the firm now known as DLA Piper Rudnick.
Avvo is represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of
Jenner & Block, of Chicago, and Davis Wright Tremaine, of Seattle.
BATTERYWORX INC: Faces "Van Den Berg" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Van Den Berg v. Batteryworx, Inc. and Does 1 to 100
inclusive, Case No. BC620810 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.
Batteryworx, Inc. operates an auto parts store located at 16100
Garfield Ave, Paramount, CA 90723.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel G. Emilio, Esq.
Justin G. Schmidt, Esq.
Laurie M. Cortez, Esq.
EMILIO LAW GROUP, APC
12832 Valley View Street, Suite 107
Garden Grove, CA 92845
Telephone: (714) 379-6239
Facsimile: (714) 379-5444
E-mail: danielemilio@emiliolaw.com
Justinschmidt@emiliolaw.com
LaurieCortez@emiliolaw.com
BLUE CROSS: American Surgical Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
American Surgical Assistants, Inc., d/b/a American Surgical
Professionals; Fortbend SA Services, Inc.; National SA Services,
Inc.; Woodbridge SA Services, Inc.; Pasadena SA Services, Inc.;
Sugar Land SA, Inc.; Brazos SA Services, Inc.; and WV Medical
Services, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama; Anthem, Inc.; Health Care Service Corporation; Cambia
Health Solutions, Inc.; CareFirst, Inc.; Premera Blue Cross;
Premera Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska; Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Arizona, Inc.; USAble Mutual Insurance Company, d/b/a
Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Blue Cross of California
d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross; California Physicians' Service, Inc.
d/b/a Blue Shield of California; Rocky Mountain Hospital and
Medical Service, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Colorado; Anthem Health Plans, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Connecticut; Highmark, Inc.; Highmark BCBSD, Inc.
d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield Delaware; Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc. d/b/a CareFirst
BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.;
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc.; Hawaii Medical
Service Association d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawaii;
Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc.; Regence BlueShield of
Idaho, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois; Anthem
Insurance Companies, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Indiana; Wellmark, Inc. d/b/a/ Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Iowa; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.; Anthem
Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Kentucky; Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity
Company d/b/a/ Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Anthem
Health Plans of Maine, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Maine; CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a CareFirst
BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts,
Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan; BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a/
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota; Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Mississippi; HMO Missouri, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Missouri; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City,
Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana; Caring for Montanans,
Inc. f/k/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.; Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Nebraska; Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Nevada, Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire, Inc. d/b/a Anthem
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire; Horizon Health Care
Services, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New
Jersey; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico; HealthNow New
York, Inc.; Blue Shield of Northeastern New York; Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Western New York, Inc.; Empire HealthChoice
Assurance, Inc. d/b/a Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield; Excellus
Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield; Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc.; Noridian Mutual Insurance
Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota; Community
Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio;
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma; Regence BlueCross
BlueShield of Oregon; Hospital Service Association of Northeastern
Pennsylvania d/b/a Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania;
Capital Blue Cross; Highmark Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Highmark
Blue Cross Blue Shield and d/b/a Highmark Blue Shield;
Independence Blue Cross; Triple-S Salud, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Rhode Island; BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
Inc.; Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of South Dakota; BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee,
Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Regence BlueCross
BlueShield of Utah; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont; Anthem
Health Plans of Virginia, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Virginia, Inc.; Regence BlueShield; Highmark West
Virginia, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West
Virginia; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin; Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wyoming; Consortium Health Plans, Inc.; National Account Service
Company, L.L.C.; and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00775-RDP (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2016),
alleges that Defendants have engaged in a horizontal market
allocation by agreeing with each other to carve the United States
into "Service Areas" in which only one Blue can sell insurance,
administer employee benefit plans or contract with healthcare
providers (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy").
ASA is a company that provides surgical assistants for surgeons
and hospitals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Earnest W. Wotring, Esq.
David George, Esq.
Karen Dow, Esq.
BAKER, WOTRING LLP
700 JPMorgan Chase Tower
600 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 980-1700
Fax: (713) 980-1701
Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com
dgeorge@bakerwotring.com
kdow@bakerwotring.com
- and -
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
2001 Park Place North
1000 Park Place Tower
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 488-1200
Fax: (800) 922-4851
E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
E-mail:tbrown@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Edith M. Kallas
380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 447-7060
Fax: (800) 922-4851
E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (713) 622-7271
Fax: (713) 623-8724
E-mail: dreich@rbfirm.net
BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective i3 REx Models
----------------------------------------------------
Consumers nationwide are suing BMW for knowingly selling allegedly
defective BMW i3 REx models that can suddenly and without warning
lose speed and power mid-drive, putting drivers and passengers at
risk of crash and injury, according to Hagens Berman.
BMW i3 owners are now being represented by leading auto defect
consumer-rights law firm, Hagens Berman, which achieved the
largest automotive settlement in U.S. history -- $1.6 billion
against Toyota. The law firm is also leading litigation against
General Motors for its ignition switch defects, and other national
lawsuits against Volkswagen and Mercedes for illegal use of
emissions-cheating software.
If you own or lease a BMW i3 REx, you may be entitled to
compensation for this serious safety defect. Contact Hagens
Berman to find out more about this issue and your consumer rights
against BMW.
BMW's i3 REx electric cars can unexpectedly lose power and drop to
dangerously low speeds when operating on low battery power with
the REx range extender operating. The lawsuit states that this
defect essentially renders the REx useless and dangerous when
operating as intended despite emphatic marketing from BMW that the
Range Extender doubles the range of the i3 from approximately 81
miles to 150 miles.
"When BMW marketed and sold these vehicles, it knew exactly how to
appeal to owners of electric cars: it sought to quell range
anxiety, or the fear that the battery won't last to the
destination," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman. "We believe that BMW exploited this fear and sold
its REx models as a cure, when in fact it knew that this defect
would leave drivers in dangerous situations, unable to maintain
safe speeds in traffic."
Rather than extending the range of the BMW i3, BMW's deceptively
named Range Extenders only come on when the battery reaches 5
percent or less charge, and they plunge the vehicles into "limp
mode", suddenly slowing the vehicle to dangerously low speeds in
highway traffic, and unable to climb hills or accelerate,
according to the complaint.
"Drivers have recounted BMW's Range Extender defect to us, calling
it a dangerous 'hazard,'" Mr. Berman added. "One driver
experienced a sudden total inability to accelerate when attempting
to pass another driver on a two-lane road with rolling hills.
Another was going 65 mph in the carpool lane of a
Los Angeles freeway when his speed suddenly dropped to 15 mph.
Those are life-threatening situations no one should ever be placed
in, and we think BMW should be held accountable for selling
dangerous, faulty electric cars."
The complaint states, "BMW's deception resulted in very real
injury to owners of the Affected Vehicles and to California
residents. By manufacturing and selling cars with defective Range
Extenders, BMW defrauded its customers and engaged in unfair
competition under state and federal law."
The lawsuit seeks buyback, reimbursement for vehicle owners for
the premium that they paid for a Range Extender over the cost of
the same model without one as well as compensation based on any
"fix" and extended warranties that will go unused. In addition,
attorneys seek punitive damages for BMW's fraud that put drivers
at risk.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 24 Lawsuits in Conn. Super Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-four class action lawsuits have been filed against
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH,
in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.
The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.
According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.
The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.
The 24 cases are:
-- Linda Beard, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Edgar Beard, Deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067851-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Richard Dunsworth, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Dorothy Carter, deceased, and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067850-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- John Givens, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Predella Lewis, deceased, and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067901-S, April 29,
2016).
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Patricia Johnson, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of James Johnson, deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067842-S, April 29,
2016).
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
-- William Judd, as surviving child and personal representative of
the Estate of LaVona Judd, Decedent, and other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067872-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Russell T. Abney, Esq.
FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (800) 521 4492
Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com
-- Robert P. Lammerts, and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067843-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419 9500
Facsimile: (404) 419 9501
E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com
-- Valerie Leapley, individually, as next kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of David Leapley, deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067900, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Roanna Loftis-Bryant as surviving spouse and personal
representative of the Estate of Billy Bryant, decedent, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067868-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Russell T. Abney, Esq.
FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (800) 521 4492
Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com
-- Melody Manley, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Gary Manley, deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067807-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Russ Medley, individually, as next of kin and as anticipated
personal representative of the Estate of Charlene Medley, and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, (Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067839-S, April 29,
2016).
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
-- Benny Millard, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067849-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Arthur Morgan, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067848-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Mary Virginia Neylon, individually, as surviving spouse, and as
personal representative of the Estate of Paul Alfred Tholl,
deceased, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067836-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419 9500
Facsimile: (404) 419 9501
E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com
-- Deloris Palmore, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067808-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Catherine Rome, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Noel Rome, deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067809-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Kenneth Ross, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067810-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Dorothy Russell, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067812-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Tomas Salazar, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Frances Salazar, deceased, and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067860-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Teresa Ann Scriminger, and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067844-S, April 29, 2016).
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419 9500
Facsimile: (404) 419 9501
E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com
-- Matthew Stokes, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the Estate of Helen Stokes, deceased, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067899-S, April 29,
2016.
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 774 2258
Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com
-- Terry Strotbaum, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067814-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Rowland Sverdahl, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067811-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Roberta Weiss, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067815-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232 6333
Facsimile: (630) 845 8982
E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com
-- Warren Douglas Wilson, and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067845-S, April 29, 2016.
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
URY & MOSKOW, LLC
833 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 610 6393
Facsimile (203) 610 6399
E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com
- and -
C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419 9500
Facsimile: (404) 419 9501
E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com
CANADA: Newfoundland Moose-Collision Class Action Appeal Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the lawyer who tried to launch a
class-action lawsuit for victims of moose-vehicle collisions in
Newfoundland and Labrador says an appeal in the case has been
rejected.
Ches Crosbie argued before a panel of three appeal court judges in
January 2015 that a trial judge was wrong to dismiss the lawsuit
in September 2014.
Mr. Crosbie says the plaintiffs are now reviewing their options
after that appeal was rejected.
The lawsuit was launched against the provincial government in 2011
on behalf of more than 100 moose-vehicle collision victims.
But a lower court judge ruled the province was not liable for the
collisions and had taken reasonable steps to prevent them.
Mr. Crosbie says the appeal panel decision doesn't prevent the
government from providing compassionate compensation to the most
deserving of the victims.
CANADA: Inmates Sue Over "Deplorable" Ottawa Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa Sun reports that a pair of former inmates put the province
on notice on May 25 that they intend to sue over the treatment
they endured in Ottawa's jail and are inviting any other inmate
who has served even a single day in the notorious detention centre
over the past two years to join them in a class-action lawsuit.
One-time prisoners Mark Zuccala and Jude Joseph filed a notice of
action over what their lawyer describes as the "inhumane" and
"degrading" conditions at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.
Lawyer Paul Champ said the class-action lawsuit is the result of a
decade of "systemic neglect" at the jail on Innes Road.
Mr. Champ estimates the lawsuit could potentially involve as many
as 4,000 inmates and targets a wide range of "deprivations" faced
by the prisoners.
"Double-bunking, triple-bunking, being forced to sleep on the
floor, medical appointments being cancelled, family visits being
cancelled, prolonged lockdowns, lack of access to hygiene
products, lack of access to showers, lack of access to cleaning
products, inadequate food or poor quality food -- basically the
issues that effect all inmates," said Mr. Champ. "We will be
looking for damages for every individual who was subjected to
those conditions."
Mr. Champ said he has been hearing "appalling" stories from
inmates who have been detained at the detention centre.
"One of our lead plaintiffs has told us about a practice at
Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre where prisoners being held in the
dorm units would be subjected to strip searches approximately once
per week. These strip searches would be altogether, all 30
inmates would be lined up together and be forced to strip and were
subjected to rectal searches in front of other inmates," said Mr.
Champ. "It's our view this is inhumane and demeaning and
degrading treatment."
Mr. Zuccala, a 36-year-old city of Ottawa employee who had never
been in jail before, spent 202 days in the detention centre last
year as a result of being charged with uttering threats and a
breach of his release conditions. He was so upset with the
conditions in the jail -- which included the routine strip
searches in front of strangers, a lack of yard time, visits that
were cancelled for weeks at a time and mould in the showers --
that he circulated a petition that was signed by half the inmates
in his unit.
Mr. Joseph, a 23-year-old Haitian immigrant who came to Canada
when he was 14, was in the jail on an immigration hold after being
arrested and charged with minor offences. Mr. Joseph was triple-
bunked during much of his seven months in the jail before his
charges were eventually withdrawn.
"These are human rights violations on a mass scale," said
Mr. Champ of what goes on in the jail.
"We can't pretend that we don't know about it anymore. We can't
turn our eyes away anymore. Throwing someone in a small cage and
leaving them to rot for two years in inhumane conditions is no way
to rehabilitate a prisoner."
Mr. Champ said any inmate who served time in the detention centre
between May 25, 2014, and June 30 of this year is eligible to join
by filling out an online form that will be posted on his law
firm's website.
Mr. Champ said he's already started circulating copies of the form
to advocacy groups, including Mothers Offering Mutual Support, the
Criminalization and Punishment Education Project, and Elizabeth
Fry Society. The form asks for their name, dates of incarceration
and some details about the conditions experienced.
Mr. Champ said he believes that if successful, the potential
damages could run in the tens of millions of dollars. However,
there are still hurdles. The plaintiffs must file a statement of
claim in 60 days, then go before a judge to convince him a class-
action lawsuit is necessary and appropriate. It could be years
before it goes to a civil trial.
Mr. Champ said he is encouraged by recent efforts by Community
Safety and Correctional Services Minister Yasir Naqvi to improve
the jail but believes the problems run so deep that nothing but a
court order can force the province to make the necessary changes.
A task force that was put in place after this newspaper published
stories of inmates having to sleep in damp and moldy shower cells
is expected to make recommendations next Wednesday, June 1, on how
to alleviate overcrowding and improve conditions at the jail.
Mr. Naqvi has vowed to make the task force's recommendations
public the day it presents them to the ministry. The province is
also conducting a review into the use of segregation. That report
is expected later this year.
The ministry declined to comment for this report.
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Class Action Mulled Over Gogma Derailments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Len Gillis, writing for Timmins Press, reports that a Timmins law
firm has contacted numerous residents in connection with the
possibility of legal action in the wake of the March 2015
derailment of a Canadian National rail oil tanker train near
Gogama.
The lawyer representing the well-known firm has declined any
public comment at this time, pending further consultations with
prospective clients. He said private meetings would likely be
held in June.
Letters have been sent out to residents living in the Gogama area
and residents who live along the Mattagami River watershed, which
extends from Gogama to Timmins, advising that the firm is seeking
the advice of an expert.
"As most of you know, we have retained an expert with respect to
the Gogama derailment and oil spill. We expect to organize a
meeting with our expert sometime in June or July. Once a date is
determined, we will advise you," said the letter.
"In the meantime if you have made any new observations or have any
pictures that you have not provided us with, please do so," the
letter continued.
This goes back to the incident that occurred in the early morning
of March 7, 2015. An eastbound CN rail trail pulling 94 tanker
cars loaded with synthetic crude oil from Alberta went off the
tracks at the Makami River bridge, less than two kilometres
northwest of Gogama.
Thirty-eight cars left the track with half a dozen rupturing and
exploding into fire. Several burning tanker cars fell into the
river. The old iron railway bridge was destroyed, partly ripped
from its concrete moorings and falling into the river.
The official report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada
reads as follows:
"Around 02:42, while travelling at about 43 mph, a train-initiated
emergency brake application occurred near Mile 88.70. Looking
back, the crew observed a fireball about 700 feet behind the
locomotives. They detached the locomotives and first five cars
behind the locomotives from the derailed cars, and pulled clear.
The temperature at the time was about -10øC."
No one was injured in the wreck. No evacuations were required,
although it did take three days to put the fires out.
Concern was raised at the time that some of the spilled oil
product in the Makami River, which flows into Minisinakwa Lake and
from there into the Mattagami Lake, Kenogamissi Lake and the
Mattagami River, might result in long-lasting contamination.
At a company-sponsored website www.cngogamainfo.ca there is
information suggesting the effects of the derailment have turned
out to be minimal. The website includes several photo galleries
and news updates to keep residents informed on important
developments.
On April 15, 2016, the Sudbury & District Health Unit stated it
had found "no increased health risk associated with consumption of
fish from Minisinakwa Lake as a result of the derailment," said
one of most recent updates.
Further to that, CN stated that workers were on the job from the
beginning to clean up the spill site.
"Since the day of the derailment, CN's responders have worked
diligently to remove oil from the river, prevent oil from
migrating downstream, and remove oil-impacted soil and sediment at
the site. These efforts have been very successful and as a
result, there is no longer a source of oil contamination in the
soil or sediment that will cause continuing impacts to the water,
wildlife or natural environment in the Makami River and
Minisinakwa Lake," said the website.
The train crash itself is still under investigation by the
Transportation Safety Board, which continues to investigate the
integrity of the Class-111 tanker cars, which split open and
burned. The TSB is also investigating the CN track safety
records, track infrastructure and a metallurgical examination of
samples of track from the wreck scene.
CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action for $9 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that Carrier IQ has a
settled a privacy class action against the company.
The allegation is that Carrier IQ software, which is in many
smartphones, collects names, passwords and other personal
information.
The company settled a class action lawsuit for 9 million dollars.
And you could get part of it, if your smartphone was made between
December of 2007 and March of 2016. It does not involve iPhones
or Verizon customers.
Carrier IQ admits no wrongdoing.
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Court Wants Class Action Complaint Revised
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed without prejudice
a shareholder class action accusing Cellular Biomedicine Group of
pumping its stock price through ads touting technology it did not
have.
Lead plaintiff Francis Bonnano sued Cellular Biomedicine Group,
five institutions and six people in April 2015, claims the
entertainment-turned-biotechnology company paid PR firms to market
its purported cell-based therapies for chronic and degenerative
diseases such as cancer, osteoarthritis and inflammatory diseases.
But Cellular had no such technology or intellectual property, and
needed money, and lots of it, to buy the technology and run
clinical trials, according to the original complaint.
Bonnano claimed Cellular paid producers for "professional looking"
broadcasts to attract investors, without adequate disclosure that
the Internet ads were paid promotions.
The defendants "knew or were reckless in not knowing that the
promotional campaign would appear to be independent by
inadequately disclosing that the company had bought and paid for
the positive research," the plaintiffs said. They also claimed
that Cellular made false and misleading filings with the SEC.
Apparently, it worked, as the stock price rose to $32.50,
according to the complaint.
But things fell apart after a blogger known as Pump Stopper posted
a 25-page piece on the financial news site SeekingAlpha.com on
April 7, 2015, revealing the paid ads and claiming that patients
had died in Cellular clinical trials at an illegal offshore stem-
cell clinic, according to the complaint.
The complaint cites these items, and other, from the blog post,
referring to Cellular Biomedicine Group as CBMG.
"With paid stock promotion CBMG has achieved an unsustainable
$500m valuation, and with $20m in stock sold and insiders stock
registered to sell, I expect CBMG will continue to collapse.
"CBMG 'Car-T' technology was acquired for $1.8m, has experienced
patient deaths and is worthless. CBMG recent R&D of just $4.9m
makes the $500m valuation clearly absurd.
"CBMG founders face dishonesty allegations, are responsible for
alleged illegal offshore stem cell clinic, while partnered with
John Mattera who is currently serving 11 years in prison for fraud
(again)."
(Mattera was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison in June 2013
after pleading guilty to defrauding investors of $13 million,
Reuters reported at the time.)
Cellular Biomedicine shares plummeted to $7 after the blog post.
In July 2015, the court approved a motion to appoint Michelle
Jackson as lead plaintiff and Laurence Rosen of Los Angeles as
lead counsel.
Defendants, including Cellular, its CEO Wei "William" Cao,
Streetwise Reports and LifeTech Capital and its senior managing
director of research Stephen Dunn filed a motion to dismiss on
April 20 this year, arguing, in part, that the plaintiffs failed
to establish "causation between the Pump Stopper report and the
economic loss suffered."
On May 20, U.S. District Judge William Orrick agreed, granting
dismissal with 20 days leave to amend.
"[Plaintiffs'] allegations fail to sufficiently establish
causation," Orrick wrote. "The section of the Pump Stopper report
plaintiffs quote in their complaint contains merely the opinions
of the author and cannot be categorically labeled as 'the truth.'"
He added: "The section of the report that plaintiffs rely on
proclaims, 'I do not suggest anyone, EVER invest in any company
that pays to promote their stock. Time and time again we have seen
how these end with 10k+stocks in the U.S. alone, there is no
reason I can see to invest in any company of this poor quality.'
This 'advice' appears in the Pump Stopper report without any
referenced footnotes or hyperlinks. These two sentences form the
majority of a three-sentence paragraph that ends with the
sentence, 'I recommend you read the extensive research below and
form your own opinions.' An anonymous poster's opinion cannot
reveal to the market the falsity of [Cellular's]
misrepresentations."
Orrick said he did not need to address the plaintiffs' other
claims because they "have not adequately pleaded loss causation."
The plaintiffs have until June 9 to file an amended complaint.
The case captioned, FRANCIS J. BONANNO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No.
15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Directors Win Dismissal of Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware, granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
entitled, IN RE CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consol. C.A. No. 9640-VCG (Del. Ch.)
Plaintiffs Joseph Hetland, Robert Countryman, and Richard Rotundo
are representative stockholders of Chelsea Therapeutics
International, Ltd., a developmental biopharmaceutical company,
which has researched and developed a drug called NORTHERA(TM) to
treat symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.
Defendants Joseph G. Oliveto, Kevan Clemens, William D. Rueckert,
Roger Stoll, and Michael Weiser are members of the Chelsea Board
of Directors.
Plaintiffs brought a class action, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty against the defendants in connection with the sale of Chelsea
to Lundbeck A/S through a tender offer and short-form merger.
Plaintiffs contend that the defendants knowingly sold the company
for an amount substantially below its standalone value, and, in
furtherance of that disloyal act, improperly instructed Chelsea's
financial advisors to ignore one set of financial projections of
the company, which assume a higher market share for the company if
the FDA were to remove the Company's primary competitor from the
market; and also chose themselves to disregard a second set of
projections, which predict increased revenue streams to the
Company should the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
the future, approve Northera for the treatment of other medical
conditions for which its use is currently neither proven effective
nor approved. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants
intentionally concealed the true, higher value of the company from
its stockholders, and also raise several other issues regarding
the sales process and terms of the transaction, most of which have
since been waived.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial verified class action complaint
on May 9, 2014, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the
defendants in connection with the transaction for failing to
sufficiently inform themselves of, or disregarding, Chelsea's
standalone value and for agreeing to a sale of the company at an
unfair price. The plaintiffs filed a verified amended consolidated
class action complaint.
Nearly one year later, the plaintiffs filed a second verified
consolidated amended complaint on June 16, 2015. The defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Court of
Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A copy of Vice Chancellor Glasscock's memorandum opinion dated May
20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/SnMxstfrom Leagle.com
Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra -- gms@rl-
legal.com -- Jeremy J. Riley -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- at RIGRODSKY &
LONG, P.A.; Ryan M. Ernst -- rernst@oelegal.com -- Daniel P.
Murray -- dmurray@oelegal.com -- at O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC;
Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
etripodi@zlk.com -- at LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP; Kent A. Bronson --
kbronson@milberg.com -- at MILBERG LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
S. Mark Hurd -- shurd@mnat.com -- Thomas P. Will -- twill@mnat.com
-- at MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP; Brian A. Herman --
brian.herman@morganlewis.com -- John A. Vassallo, III --
john.vassallo@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants Joseph G. Oliveto, Michael Weiser, Kevan
Clemens, Roger Stoll, and William D. Rueckert
CHICAGO, IL: City Attorneys Seek Dismissal of Water Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
saying the Chicago city residents who brought the legal action
can't prove they were injured by lead in their water and arguing
the lawsuit comes directly against the city's rights under the law
to set its own governmental policy, Chicago city attorneys have
asked the court to toss a class action demanding the court order
the city to replace lead water pipes leading to homes throughout
the city and pay for medical monitoring for a large number of
Chicagoans who may have been exposed to lead now and in the past.
The city's dismissal request came in a May 12 filing in response
to a lawsuit brought in February by three city residents,
ostensibly on behalf of a plaintiffs class that could include many
thousands of other Chicago city residents.
That lawsuit, which itself came in the wake of the still unfolding
waterborne lead contamination scandal in Flint, Mich., alleged the
city did not do enough to warn residents or protect them from the
risk of lead contamination in their water supply in areas in which
the city was working to replace lead water pipes leading into
homes in the city.
Named plaintiffs in the action included Tatjana Blotkevic, of the
800 block of N. California Avenue in Humboldt Park, and Ilya Pesin
and Yakov Yarmove, of the 6400-6500 blocks of N. Albany Avenue in
the West Ridge neighborhood. They are represented in the action by
attorneys with the firms of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, of
Chicago, and the Freydin Law Firm, of Skokie.
The city has since 2008 worked on replacing lead water service
lines in various parts of Chicago, to gradually reduce the large
number of Chicago properties that receive drinking water at least
partially through lead pipes.
To reduce the risk, the city has treated its water supply with
chemicals to react with lead and create a coating in the pipes to
prevent lead from contaminating the drinking water.
However, the residents' suit alleged the technique can fail,
particularly when the pipes are disturbed by construction
activity, including city work to replace lead water lines. This
can cause elevated levels of lead to enter the water stream into
nearby homes, the complaint said, potentially weeks or even months
after the work is completed.
The plaintiffs said the city did nothing about this problem, and
should be ordered to replace all the lead water lines, and pay for
testing to make sure residents aren't being exposed to lead.
The city, however, said the "extensive and unprecedented" demands
both fall short and go too far under the law.
The city said none of the plaintiffs can demonstrate they were
ever actually exposed to elevated lead, or suffered harm from it.
The city's filings noted, for instance, the water service line
into Ms. Blotkevic's home is made of copper, not lead.
The lack of demonstrable injury alone should end the litigation,
the city argued. But beyond that, the city said the lawsuit also
trespasses on its sovereign rights under Illinois law to set
policy, such as when and how to replace lead water mains, or "what
warnings to provide and what to publicly state regarding potential
risks of increased lead contamination."
The city pointed to previous cases in which courts held cities
cannot be held liable for, among other things, not notifying
residents of the risk of flooding.
The city said, in the same way, "the City cannot be held liable
for allegedly not warning City residents of increased lead
contamination risks related to replacing water mains and sewers."
"The City's decisions to replace water mains and meters and
determine the information it provides on post-replacement
precautions are quintessential discretionary policy determinations
for which the City is immune from liability under the Local
Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act," the
city's filing said. "The facts here demonstrate the legislature's
wisdom in providing such immunity, as allowing lawsuits such as
this one would obstruct the City's ability to replace its aging
water infrastructure and to protect the long-term health of the
City and its residents."
The city is represented in the action by staff attorneys in its
Department of Law and by attorneys from the firm of Kirkland &
Ellis, of Chicago.
CONAIR CORP: S.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Czuchaj"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTIDA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-
1901-BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal.), a Pre-Trial Conference was held on May
20, 2016. At the hearing, District Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed
to review its class certification rulings and clarify any
ambiguities. The Court finds no ambiguities but now reconsiders
its order certifying a nationwide class for injunctive relief.
On November 12, 2015, the Court certified a nationwide class under
Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) for implied warranty claims under common
law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Court also certified
two state subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3):
(a) a California subclass for claims under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Song-
Beverly Warranty Act; and
(b) a New York subclass for a claim under New York General
Business Law Sec. 349.
Thereafter, Defendant moved to decertify the Rule 23(b)(3)
nationwide class. That motion was granted.
Common questions do not predominate throughout the nationwide
class because of the material differences in state laws. However,
Defendant did not raise any arguments to decertify the nationwide
class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). On the basis of
Defendant's silence, the Court denied the motion as to the Rule
23(b)(2) class.
The Court now reconsiders its Order declining to decertify the
Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide injunctive relief class. Because the
nationwide class action for monetary relief has been decertified,
there remains no substantive legal theory upon which to base
nationwide injunctive relief. Generally, certification under Rule
23(b)(2) is not appropriate where the relief relates predominantly
to money damages. Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1255 (9th
Cir. 1990). Common issues need not predominate for certification
under Rule 23(b)(2). Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th
Cir. 1998). But for an injunctive relief class, there must be
clear legal violation alleged. See e.g. Orantes-Hernandez v.
Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549,558 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive relief class certified based on allegations that INS
engaged in persistent national pattern of misconduct violating
rights of aliens).
In this case, the predominant relief requested in each
jurisdiction relates to money damages, and there is no nationwide
substantive legal theory class to support a nationwide class for
injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court reconsiders its earlier
order and now decertifies the Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class for
injunctive relief.
Trial in the case is set for September 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.
Motions in limine, if any, shall be filed by August 22, 2016.
A copy of the Court's May 24, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZqFFBO from Leagle.com.
Cynthia L Czuchaj et al. Plaintiffs, represented by Isam C Khoury
-- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Geraci --
jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jerusalem F.
Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar & Chase, Katherine J
Odenbreit -- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- Odenbreit Law, APC,
Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury &
Singer, Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy D
Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.
Conair Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Donald Saba --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- and Momo Emily Takahashi --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- at Rosen Saba LLP.
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Court Rules on Discovery Bid in "Wilson"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ABDULLAH JAMES GEORGE WILSON, Plaintiff, v.
CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC, Defendant, No. 14-CV-2477 (JPO) (RLE)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted in part and denied, in
part, the letter-motion filed by CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (1) to
compel Abdullah James George Wilson to produce documents, and (2)
for a protective order with respect to information that Wilson
seeks to obtain through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)
deposition of SafeRent's corporate representative.
Judge Ellis ordered as follows:
(1) SafeRent's motion to compel Wilson to produce non-
public documents pertaining to the Queens County
Action was denied;
(2) SafeRent's motion for a protective order
prohibiting Rule 30(b)(6) questioning regarding
SafeRent's matching criteria was granted;
(3) SafeRent's motion for a protective order
prohibiting Rule 30(b)(6) questioning regarding
SafeRent's dispute-handling processes and the
software used to track disputes was denied; and
(4) All discovery shall be completed by June 24, 2016.
A full-text copy of Judge Ellis' May 23, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/2m4EWq from Leagle.com.
Wilson brought the action, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, against CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sections
1681-1681x and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen.
Bus. section 380 et seq. The case was referred to Judge Ellis for
general pretrial.
Abdullah James George Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by David A.
Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
P.C., pro hac vice, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C., pro hac
vice, John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN, P.C., Lauren Kw Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -
- Francis & Mailman, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark D. Mailman --
mmailman@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC, Monica
Welby, Legal Action Center & Sally B. Friedman, Legal Action
Center of the City of New York.
Corelogic Saferent, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christina
Heather Bost Seaton -- christina.bostseaton@fisherbroyles.com --
FisherBroyles, LLP, Alan Durrum Wingfield --
alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, David
Neal Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Patrick Wallace --
kevin.wallace@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP &
Timothy James St. George -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.
DAIMLER AG: Faces "Munro" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Munro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Daimler AG, Dieter Zetsche, and Thomas Weber, Case No.
2:16-cv-03412 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
Daimler AG through its subsidiaries, develops, produces,
distributes, and sells passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses
worldwide. Daimler operates through Mercedes-Benz Cars, Daimler
Trucks, Mercedes-Benz Vans, Daimler Buses, and Daimler Financial
Services segments.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (818) 532-6449
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
mgorrie@pomlaw.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: July 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is issued by Goldman Scarlato & Penny,
P.C.:
To: All persons who purchased securities of Deutsche Bank ("DB" or
the "Company") between April 15, 2013 and April 29, 2016.
You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. If
you purchased Deutsche Bank securities between April 15, 2013 and
April 29, 2016, your rights may be affected by this action.
The complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank issued materially false
and misleading statements to investors regarding its compliance,
or lack thereof, with its own internal controls. The United
States Department of Justice in investigating billions of dollars
in trades through DB, so-called "mirror trades" which potentially
allowed clients to move funds without properly alerting
authorities.
If you suffered a significant loss in your investment in Deutsche
Bank, you have until July 11, 2016 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information
about this case, class actions in general, or the role of a lead
plaintiff in a securities fraud class action, contact Paul J.
Scarlato, Esq. either via email at scarlato@lawgsp.com or by
telephone at (484) 342-0700. You can also obtain more information
about the Firm by visiting our website: http://www.lawgsp.com
The attorneys of Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C. bring over 25
years of experience investigating and litigating securities fraud
cases in courts throughout the country.
DIRECTV: Antitrust Suits Over NFL Sunday Ticket Games Combined
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel, writing for FierceCable, reports that a flurry of
antitrust lawsuits filed by both residential and commercial
customers against DirecTV and the NFL over the exclusivity of NFL
Sunday Ticket out-of-market games has been combined into a
nationwide class action complaint, with law firm Robins Kaplan LLP
selected as the co-lead for the plaintiffs.
Twenty-six individual actions against DirecTV and the NFL allege
that the Sunday Ticket programming package gives exclusive TV
rights to all NFL games not played in a given local area to a
single provider, thus violating anti-trust laws.
"The proposed class of fans and commercial establishments allege
that they are being forced to pay artificially high prices to view
and show NFL games under the unique and anticompetitive terms of
the NFL's and DirecTV's agreements," said Kellie Lerner --
KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com -- partner at Robins Kaplan, in a
statement.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Partly Allowed Supplemental Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Alan Kay of the District of Columbia granted in
part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to permit additional
evidence in the case ALICIA CARSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-1976 (EGS-AK) (D.D.C.)
Alicia Carson is the mother of D.C., a minor child who is entitled
to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (IDEA),
20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. Carson filed an administrative due
process complaint, and an amended complaint on June 10, 2014,
alleging that the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS)
denied D.C. a FAPE by failing to timely evaluate D.C. after Carson
made a request on October 25, 2013, by failing to meet its Child
Find obligations, by failing to assess the circumstances
warranting an evaluation by failing to have an appropriate
Individual Education Program at the beginning of the school year
and failing to provide an appropriate placement.
On July 16, 2014, Carson filed a notice of her intent to raise
procedural errors that occurred during the resolution session.
Specifically, Carson alleged that DCPS failed to approach the
resolution session meeting as an opportunity to resolve all of
Carson's concerns, failed to have someone at the resolution
session meeting who could negotiate a settlement agreement in a
meaningful way and refused to provide compensatory education.
On August 24, 2014, the Hearing Officer's Determination was issued
and denied all the relief requested by Carson. Carson seeks to
present the court with additional evidence in anticipation of her
motion to reverse the Hearing Officer's Determination.
Carson seeks to supplement the administrative record with four
types of documents. The emails sent from Carson's counsel to
Zalika Wright that was used for impeachment purposes at the
administrative hearing. The emails between Carson's counsel and
DCPS along with a copy of a proposed settlement agreement to show
that DCPS engaged in misconduct. An individualized education plan
and multi-disciplinary team notes that occurred after the
administrative hearing to show the Hearing Officer committed
factual errors in the HOD and a psychiatric evaluation that was
completed after the administrative hearing to challenge the HOD's
finding that DCPS met its Child Find obligations.1
Magistrate Judge Kay granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's request to supplement the
administrative record with the July 22, 2014 Psychiatric
Evaluation [9-7] is granted. Plaintiff's requests to supplement
the administrative record with all other exhibits are denied.
A copy of Magistrate Judge Kay's memorandum opinion dated May 20,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Ybt5oafrom Leagle.com.
ALICIA CARSON, Plaintiff, represented by Steve Nabors, MORAN &
ASSOCIATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented byVeronica A. Porter,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOW CHEMICAL: Has $375MM Deal with Colorado Homeowners
------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a $375 million settlement will end the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons
plant's 26-year legal battle with thousands of Colorado
homeowners, if approved by a federal judge in Denver.
About 15,000 land- and homeowners in the Westminster and Arvada
area will get damages from Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell
International Corp., co-owners of the Rocky Flats plant that made
triggers for nuclear warheads during the Cold War.
Rocky Flats closed in 1989, after an FBI investigation found it
had contaminated soil and groundwater with radioactive plutonium.
The cleanup cost $7 billion and took 16 years.
A class action filed in 1990, and settled on May 19, determined
Rockwell was liable for $244 million and Dow for $131 million.
The plant over more than 40,000 workers and operated for 40 years
in flatlands a few miles outside of Arvada. Employees regularly
handled plutonium and other radioactive agents to create
detonators that were shipped Texas, where they were assembled into
nuclear weapons.
Because the plant was operated for the U.S. Department of Energy,
it is not yet clear how much the federal government will pay Dow
and Rockwell for their liability.
Class attorneys and the Department of Energy did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Artists' Class Suit Over Wages May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose certified a class of employees and
former employees who claim major animation companies conspired to
suppress their wages.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh allowed the core of the workers'
certification claims to proceed, denying a minor aspect of the
claim: to include employees who worked from 2001 until 2003.
Lead plaintiff Robert Nitsch's original claim, from 2014, covered
workers from the previous 10 years. Koh said that to alter the
time frame, the plaintiffs would have to fully amend the original
complaint.
Nonetheless, Koh ruled in favor of plaintiffs on every major class
certification claim, paving the way for a major trial involving
the largest animation studios in the world, including Pixar,
Disney, LucasFilms and Dreamworks.
The class certification argument centered on the plaintiffs'
methodology to determine which workers qualified. The plaintiffs'
expert, Orley Ashenfelter, used employee data and algorithms to
come up with a number of class members.
The defense expert, Michael Keeley, attacked Ashenfelter's
methods, which the studios call unreliable, claiming, among other
things, that independent contractors such as actors were included
in the model.
But Koh was not persuaded.
"The court does not find persuasive defendants' criticisms of Dr.
Ashenfelter's methodology," Koh wrote in her ruling. "Defendants
have not presented analysis that undermines the reliability of Dr.
Ashenfelter's analysis, and many of defendants' arguments are
contradicted by the documentary evidence."
Ashenfelter's methodology found that wage suppression affected
employees throughout the animation industry, not just the
production employees who were the alleged subjects of the
conspiracy.
Koh also allowed class certification to move forward on fraudulent
concealment.
The defense argued at a previous hearing that blog posts and
employee comments demonstrated that the wage suppression tactics
were commonly known, or known by some of the plaintiffs, so the
claims should be individualized and not treated as a class.
But Koh cited rulings in similar cases stating that just because
different issues pertinent to the case affect certain class
members differently does not undermine their right to be treated
as a class.
Nitsch's September 2014 lawsuit claims major animation studios
colluded to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for their
artists.
Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks
and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures
Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios - including
Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm, Sony
Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers - conspired to stifle
wages and restrict career opportunities for animators, digital
artists, software engineers and other technical workers.
The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed against Apple, Google and
others in 2010, which claimed their CEOs made "gentleman's
agreements" to restrict competition, and companion wage-setting
mechanisms, by not poaching each other's employees.
Pixar and Lucasfilm settled for $9 million collectively last year,
but Koh has rejected a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple,
Google, Intel and Adobe in that case.
Nitsch claims the animation studios acted in much the same way as
the tech companies, conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of
dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines." The
lawsuit continues: "It did so at the same time the films produced
by these workers achieved world renown and generated billions in
the United States and abroad."
Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs
bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in
1986 and created Pixar. Nitsch says Jobs, Lucas and Pixar
president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold call each other's
employees. Neither Lucas, Catmull nor Apple are defendants in
Nitsch's complaint. He claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to
notify each other when making an offer to an employee, and agreed
not to offer higher pay if the current employer made a
counteroffer. And, he says, Jobs and Catmull spread this kind of
anti-competitive agreement throughout the animation industry.
"Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of
suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and
offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took
steps to stop them," the complaint states.
The artists say the studios' cooperation was so thorough they
emailed each other salary and budget information.
Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was]
we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we
don't have the margins for that sort of thing." The other studios
used similar practices and pay structures, Nitsch's complaint
states.
After a Department of Justice investigation, Nitsch says, Pixar
and Lucasfilm signed settlements prohibiting them from making such
nonsolicitation agreements. But Nitsch says the practice
continued.
Emails to Robert Van Nest, attorney for the defense, and Jeff
Friedman, attorney for the plaintiffs, were not returned May 26.
The case captioned, ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et al., Defendants., Case No.
14-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of Endo International plc ("Endo" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 16-cv-03912, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Endo International securities between March 2, 2015 and May 6,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Endo securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 25, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
As a pharmaceutical company, Endo's revenue stream relies in part
on Endo's ability to negotiate favorable arrangements with
pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") -- companies that manage
prescription drug benefits for members of health plans -- for the
coverage of Endo's products by insurers. As PBMs have the power
to determine which drugs are covered by a health plan,
pharmaceutical companies often offer reduced prices, rebates, or
other incentives to have their drugs listed on a PMB's formulary.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Endo Pharmaceuticals'
arrangements with PBMs with respect to the migraine therapy Frova
included questionable incentives intended to increase sales
revenues; (ii) consequently, Endo's revenues and revenue
projections relied in part on unsustainable arrangements; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Endo's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 5, 2016, after the market closed, Endo filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the SEC and issued a press release
announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the
quarter ended March 31, 2016 (the "Q1 2015 Earnings Release"). In
the Q1 2015 Earnings Release, Endo reported a loss of $0.40 per
diluted share, down from earnings of $0.11 per share in the first
quarter of 2015. Additionally, Endo significantly cut its 2016
guidance, announcing targeted revenue in the range of $3.87
billion and $4.03 billion, down from the range of $4.32 billion to
$4.52 billion that the Company had reaffirmed in March, less than
two months earlier. Concurrently, the Company announced changes
to its board and management structure, including the resignation
of Brian Lortie, President of the Company's U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals segment, pending selection of his replacement.
On this news, Endo's stock price fell $10.42 per share, or 39.19%,
to close at $16.17 on May 6, 2016.
On May 6, 2016, after the market closed, Endo filed a Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended March 31,
2016 (the "Q1 2016 10-Q"). In the Q1 2016 10-Q, Endo reiterated
the financial and operating results previously announced in the Q1
2016 Press Release.
On this news, Endo's stock price fell an additional $0.90 per
share, or more than 5.57%, to close at $15.27 on May 9, 2016, the
next trading day. In total, between May 5, 2016 and May 9, 2016,
the Company's stock price fell $11.32 per share, or 42.57%, in two
days of trading.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settles Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that in another settlement,
Family Dollar has agreed to pay up to $500 in gift cards and cash.
Allegations were that the company sent text messages to cellphones
without getting the customers approval. It allegedly happened
between October of 2013 and March of 2016.
Family Dollar admits no wrongdoing.
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Blaha" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Blaha, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02791-
WHW-CLW (D.N.J., May 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The Defendants operate a collection agency specializing in the
collection of older debt.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
FIRSTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freilich" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Freilich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02546 (E.D.N.Y, May 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC provides debt collections services to
the leading credit card issuers, financial institutions, and
healthcare providers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Class. Cert. Bid Filed 7 Months Late
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES T. CASSIDY AND FAITH H. CASSIDY, individually
and as representatives of others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Civil Action No. 15-2483 (E.D. La.), District Judge Kurt
D. Engelhardt ruled that:
1. Ford Motor Company's "Motion to Dismiss or Strike
Plaintiffs' Class Action Allegations" is granted and
the class allegations are struck from the complaint;
2. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class", which was filed
on May 20, 2016, more than seven months after the
deadline, is denied as untimely.
A copy of the Court's May 25, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/PTPQAS from Leagle.com.
James T. Cassidy and Faith H. Cassidy, Plaintiffs, represented by:
Brian J. Branch, Esq.
Edward J. Womac, Jr., Esq.
Edward J. Womac, Jr., & Associates, LLC
3501 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Tel: (504) 470-3935
(504) 486-9999
Jordan M. Lewis, Esq., also represents the Plaintiffs.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Keith W. McDaniel
-- kmcdaniel@mcsalaw.com -- McCranie, Sistrunk, Janet L Conigliaro
-- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Jeffrey Martin
Yeatman -- jeffrey.yeatman@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP, pro hac
vice, Joel A. Dewey -- joel.dewey@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP,
pro hac vice, Joshua H Dierker -- jdierker@mcsalaw.com --
McCranie, Sistrunk & Lance B. Williams -- lwilliams@mcsalaw.com --
McCranie, Sistrunk.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Judge Revives Gun Owners' Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Renee Cohn Jubilirer of the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed in part and denied in part, and remanded the
case of John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1,
Appellants, v. Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office,
Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony and Employee John/Jane Does,
No. 1634 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Cmmw.)
The Licensees are four adult residents on the County of
Pennsylvania that have received a license from the sheriff's
office. Licensees filed an eight-count class action complaint
against the defendants Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's
Office, and Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony on December 19,
2014.
Counts I-IV of the complaint allege that, by sending renewal,
approval, denial, revocation, and renewal notices via a postcard
instead of enclosing the information within an envelope, the
County (Count I), the Sheriff's Office (Count II), Sheriff Anthony
(Count III), and Employee Does (Count IV) disclosed confidential
information in violation of Section 6111(i) of the UFA, 18 Pa.
C.S. Section 6111(i).
Count V alleges that defendants and employee Does violated
licensees' right to privacy and invaded their seclusion, solitude,
and private affairs, by, but not limited to, publicly disclosing
confidential information.
Count VI alleges that pursuant to Section 6109(h) of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, the County, Sheriff's
Office, and Sheriff Anthony are required, and owed licensees a
fiduciary duty, to either utilize the $1.50 paid to the County by
licensees in the issuance of renewal notices or to refund the
money to licensees.
Count VII alleges that the defendants are liable for conversion
for failing to either use the funds for renewal notices or refund
$1.50 to licensees. The final count of the complaint alleges that
defendants have violated the law and licensees will be irreparably
harmed if the practices complained of above are allowed to
continue.
Defendants filed preliminary objections on February 2, 2015,
demurring to the allegations in the complaint and alleging that
the averments lacked specificity.
The Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District sustained
the preliminary objections filed by the defendants. Licensees
appealed.
Judge Jubilirer affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded
the case to the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial
District.
A copy of Judge Jubelirer's opinion dated May 20, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/GWQEOOfrom Leagle.com.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania panel consists of Senior Judge
Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter and Judges Renee Cohn Jubelirer and
Michael H. Wojcik.
GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Henig" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tzvi Henig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-02544-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Gatestone & Co. International, Inc. is an accounts receivable
management and call center services company in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
GENERAL MILLS: Class Cert. Ruling in Contamination Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge C. Arlen Beam of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit, reversed the certification order and remanded the
case of Karl Ebert; Carol Krauze; Jackie Milbrandt, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. General Mills, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-
1735 (8th Cir.)
General Mills owned and operated an industrial facility in the
Como neighborhood of Minneapolis from approximately 1930 to 1977.
In 1977, Henkel Corporation purchased the property from General
Mills. In 1984, General Mills signed a Consent Order and Remedial
Action Plan with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in
which it agreed, in part, to address trichloroethylene (TCE)
presence, if any, in groundwater below and near the facility.
Plaintiffs are owners of residential properties in a particular
neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sued General Mills,
alleging General Mills caused the chemical substance TCE to be
released onto the ground and into the environment at a former
General Mills facility, located within the same neighborhood. The
plaintiffs claim that as a result of the contamination, TCE vapors
migrated into the surrounding residential area, threatening the
health of the residents and diminishing the value of their
property.
The plaintiffs first learned of the TCE vapor contamination in
2013, and each of the named plaintiffs received customized vapor
mitigation systems. Seeking to represent a class consisting of all
persons and non-governmental entities that own residential
property within the class area, plaintiffs assert five legal
claims, a violation of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a common law negligence,
private nuisance, willful and wanton misconduct, and a violation
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The district court granted class certification after analyzing the
Rule 23 factors, and additionally denied General Mills' motion to
exclude two of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses.
General Mills challenges the district court's grant of class
certification.
A copy of Circuit Judge Beam's opinion dated May 20, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/ogMn9Dfrom Leagle.com.
The Eight Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges C. Arlen Beam,
Roger L. Wollman and Raymond W. Gruender.
GENUINE TITLE: Md. Appeals Court Weighs In on RP Section 14-127
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case EDWARD J. AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al. v. GENUINE TITLE,
LLC, et al., Misc. No. 19 September Term, 2015 (Md. App.), Judge
Shirley M. Watts of the Court of Appeals of Maryland made a
negative answer to the question of law: "Does Md. Code Ann., Real
Prop. [(1974, 2015 Repl. Vol.) ("RP")] Sec. 14-127 imply a private
right of action?"
Edward J. Fangman and Vicki Fangman seek to represent a class of
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 individuals who, from 2009 to 2014,
retained Genuine Title, LLC for settlement and title services and
utilized various lenders for the purchase and/or refinancing of
their residences.
On December 6, 2013, the Fangmans filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County an initial class action complaint against Genuine
Title. Genuine Title then removed the case to the federal court.
On January 2, 2015, the Fangmans, along with 30 other appellants,
filed the first amended complaint on behalf of themselves and the
alleged class, adding as defendants the Genuine Title appellees
and all but one of the lender appellees.
On May 20, 2015, plaintiff-appellants filed a second amended
complaint, adding as a defendant one lender appellee and adding 16
additional plaintiffs. In the second amended complaint, appellants
alleged that the Genuine Title appellees and Lender appellees
violated 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(a) and (b), part of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), RP Section 14-127, and
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law (1975, 2013 Repl. Vol.) (CL) Section 13-
301, part of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
In response to the second amended complaint, the Genuine Title
appellees and lender appellees filed in the federal court 11
separate motions to dismiss.
On November 24, 2015, the federal court conducted a hearing on the
motions to dismiss. On December 9, the federal court issued a
memorandum opinion in which the court, with one exception, denied
the motions to dismiss the RESPA claims, granted the motions to
dismiss the Maryland Consumer Protection Act claims, and stayed
the motions to dismiss the RP Section 14-127.
As to the RP Section 14-127 claims, the federal court observed
that no Maryland state court decision has resolved the present
issue, and thus the federal court certified the question of law to
the current court.
Judge Watts held that RP Section 14-127 does not contain an
express or implied private right of action, as neither RP Section
14-127's plain language, legislative history, nor legislative
purpose demonstrates any intent on the General Assembly's part to
create a private right of action. Judge Watts answered in negative
to the certified question of law.
A copy of Judge Watts's opinion dated May 20, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/6rtKTVfrom Leagle.com.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland panel consists of Chief Judge
Mary Ellen Barbera and Judges Shirley M. Watts, Lynne Battaglia,
Sally D. Adkins, Robert N. McDonald and Michael D. Hotten.
GLK FOODS: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Jimenez"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William C. Griesbach ruled on the various motions for
summary judgment filed by the parties in the case captioned
ALEJANDRO JURADO JIMENEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLK FOODS LLC and
RYAN A. DOWNS, Defendants. AND JOSE ENRIQUEZ RAMIREZ et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GLK FOODS LLC and RYAN A. DOWNS, Defendants, Case
Nos. 12-CV-209, 12-CV-210 (E.D. Wis.).
The related class actions arose out of the recruitment and
employment of Mexican migrant workers as "trim-line laborers" to
process raw cabbage into sauerkraut at a facility owned by the
defendant GLK Foods, LLC, in Bear Creek, Wisconsin. The defendant
Ryan Downs is an owner and president of GLK. Over the years, GLK
applied for and was granted authorization to employ the workers
under the federal government's "H-2B" guest-worker visa program.
See 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Alexandro Jurado
Jimenez et al. brought Case No. 12-cv-209 (hereinafter "the
Jimenez case") on behalf of approximately 210 migrant workers who
worked at the cannery during one or more of the 2006 through 2011
late summer/early fall seasons, with the exception of 2009 when
GLK missed the deadline for its application for authorization to
import H-2B workers. Jose Enriquez Ramirez et al. brought Case
No. 12-cv-210 ("the Ramirez case") on behalf of approximately 35
other H-2B workers who were recruited by GLK in 2011, but then not
provided jobs after they had incurred the expenses of obtaining
visas and traveling to the Mexican-United States border for
transportation to the job site.
In a previous decision, the district court granted in part the
motion for summary judgment of the plaintiffs in the Jimenez case
on their claim that the defendants violated the Fair Labors
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. sections 201-219, by failing to
reimburse certain travel expenses, visa fees and border crossing
expenses to the extent necessary to prevent the first week wages
of the 2010 and 2011 workers from falling below the federal
minimum wage. The plaintiffs in both cases (collectively
"Plaintiffs") and the defendants ("GLK") filed cross motions for
summary judgment on several of the remaining claims, which arise
under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(AWPA), 29 U.S.C. sections 1801-1871, the Wisconsin Migrant Labor
Act (WMLA), Wis. Stat. sections 103.90-.97, Wisconsin's wage
payment and living wage laws, and the State's common law governing
contract.
Judge Griesback ordered as follows:
-- The plaintiffs' unopposed motion to modify the scope
of class certification in the Ramirez case was
granted.
-- The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to
liability and damages on Counts IV, V and VII in the
Jimenez case and Count I in the Ramirez case was
granted in part and denied, in part. It was denied
as to damages but granted in all other respects.
-- The plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on
Counts III, VI, VII and VIII in the Jimenez case and
Counts I and II in the Ramirez case were granted.
-- GLK's motions for summary judgment on Counts III,
VI, and VIII in the Jimenez case and Counts I and II
in the Ramirez case were DENIED.
A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's May 23, 2016 consolidated
decision and order is available at https://is.gd/4bCGgv from
Leagle.com.
Jose Enriquez Ramirez, Isidro Enriquez Ramirez, Jiovanni Mendez
Lancon, Francisco Ruiz Figueroa, Javier Jimenez Vera, Salvador
Chavez Jurado, Antonio Arroyo Jurado, Jacobo Martinez Gallardo,
Jose Manuel Lancon Jurado, Alejandro Ruiz Rosas, Gustavo Moreno
Ortiz, Jose Martinez Jurado, J Santos Soto Vazquez, Gustavo Vera
Ramirez, Javier Jimenez Ramirez, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce
Goldstein -- bgoldstein@gapattorneys.com -- Farmworker Justice,
Christopher J Wilmes -- cwilmes@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers
Resnick & Dym Ltd, Jose J Behar -- jbehar@hsplegal.com -- Hughes
Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Joshua Karsh -- jkarsh@hsplegal.com
-- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd & Matthew J Piers --
mpiers@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.
Fermin Jimenez Rosas, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Karsh,
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker
Justice, Christopher J Wilmes, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
Ltd & Jose J Behar, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.
Jonathan Vicente Baca Jurado, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua
Karsh, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Matthew J Piers,
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker
Justice & Jose J Behar, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.
GLK Foods LLC, Ryan A Downs, Defendants, represented by Michael
Aldana -- michael.aldana@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP.
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System "Unconstitutional," Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Texas' most populous county jails misdemeanor arrestees who
can't afford bail, an unconstitutional "wealth-based" system that
leaves poor people languishing behind bars, an inmate claims in
Houston federal class action.
Maranda Lynn ODonnell, a 22-year-old mother of a 4-year-old
daughter, was arrested May 18 on a charge of driving on a
suspended license and booked into Harris County Jail.
The jail in downtown Houston is the biggest in Texas and third
biggest in the United States. "It books on average 120,000
individuals per year and 330 individuals per day," the complaint
states. The crowded jail and unconstitutional bail system often
prove to be a deadly combination, ODonnell claims in her May 19
lawsuit. "Between 2009 and 2015, 55 human beings died while in
pretrial custody in the Harris County Jail," the complaint states.
ODonnell says she couldn't afford the $2,500 bail set by Harris
County's bail schedule, which sets predetermined amounts based on
the charges. ODonnell gets federal subsidies to pay for food and
she and her daughter live with a friend.
"She recently obtained a job at a restaurant within the past few
weeks, but she is worried that her current jailing will cause her
to lose her job," the complaint states.
Court records show that ODonnell made bail after she filed the
lawsuit. She sued Harris County, its Sheriff Ron Hickman and five
magistrate judges who serve as probable cause hearing officers and
determine bail for arrestees.
The Department of Justice is investigating Hickman's handling of
the jail. Since Hickman took office in May 2015, four inmates died
after they were assaulted by other prisoners in separate
incidents, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Patrick Joseph Brown, 46, died in the jail on April 4 from a brain
hemorrhage about 28 hours after he was booked on a misdemeanor
charge of stealing a guitar. Other inmates beat him in a crowded
basement holding cell, the Chronicle reported. Hickman said in a
news conference after Brown's death that he doesn't have enough
personnel to check on inmates in cells and monitor footage from
surveillance cameras fixed on holding cells because the jail is
understaffed by "several hundred" detention officers, the
newspaper reported.
ODonnell says in her lawsuit that Harris County's detention system
is unconstitutionally rigged against poor people because
magistrate judges set their bail with no consideration of whether
they can afford it. She says jail staff assemble groups of 20 to
45 new arrestees throughout each day, many of them charged with
minor misdemeanors, and trots them into a room at the jail for
probable cause hearings conducted via video by a magistrate.
The magistrates hold the hearings from a courtroom in the Harris
County Criminal Courthouse, alongside prosecutors who ask the
judge to find probable cause for the arrest and sometimes urge the
judge to set bail higher than the rate set by the county's
schedule.
"Harris County does not provide defense attorneys at this hearing.
Almost one-third of Harris County arrestees lack a high school
education and one in five have serious mental health problems,"
the complaint states.
The magistrates can recommend "personal bonds," under which an
inmate is released without having to post bail, but rarely do so
because they are bound by the county's strict bail guidelines,
ODonnell says.
"Only about 8 percent of misdemeanor arrestees were recommended
for personal bonds in 2014. According to county policies, 92
percent of misdemeanor arrestees were deemed ineligible for such
release," ODonnell says, citing a 2014 Harris County pretrial
services report.
ODonnell claims the magistrates don't even let defendants who say
they can't afford bail ask for a lower amount because the judges
say the issue should be worked out in open court after the inmate
is appointed a defense attorney.
"On one recent occasion that is typical of standard policy, after
a hearing officer made a bail decision according to the money bail
schedule, the arrestee asked the hearing officer, 'Can I say
something?'" the complaint states.
"The hearing officer responded, 'You can talk to me all you want,
but it's not going to change the outcome. I'm setting it according
to the schedule. Talk to your lawyer about it in the morning.'"
ODonnell seeks class certification and a declaration that Harris
County's bail policy violates inmates' constitutional rights.
She is represented by Lexie White -- awhite@susmangodfrey.com --
with Susman Godfrey in Houston and Alec Karakatsanis --
alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- with Equal Justice Under Law, a
Washington, D.C. firm that does pro bono work for poor people.
The Harris County Sheriff's Office did not respond to a request
for comment.
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Class Action Over Discount Coupon Confusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Stein, writing for al.com, reports that two Alabamians have
filed a federal lawsuit against Hobby Lobby after receiving a
lesser discount than expected using a 40-percent-off coupon.
The complaint was filed May 20 in U.S. District Court on behalf of
two plaintiffs represented by Brian Clark, an attorney for a
Birmingham law firm. The case is being brought as a nationwide
class action suit claiming deceptive trade practices and breach of
contract.
The lawsuit claims that a woman was shopping at a Hobby Lobby
store in Walker County in April. She downloaded a coupon for 40
percent off "one item at regular price only," intending to use it
to purchase a chest of drawers. The item was marked as "always
30% off" at a price of $202.99.
The discount was taken from not the listed price, but the
"regular" price, which the suit describes as "largely fictional."
"The . . . scheme is not unique to this particular item," the suit
states. "Rather, many items are 'always' on sale, but coupon
discounts are taken from a price the item never sells at, which is
most definitely not the regular price referenced in the coupon."
In October, a male customer experienced the same coupon confusion
at a Shelby County location.
The issue applies to coupons downloaded onto smartphones and
printed coupons alike.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary and injunctive relief and
asking that Hobby Lobby end its practice of calculating coupon
discounts based on prices that are never actually charged.
The complaint also argues that Hobby Lobby executives cannot claim
that they are unaware of the misleading nature of "permanent" or
"never-ending" sales because of a 2014 settlement.
The Associated Press reported that Hobby Lobby reached a
settlement with New York authorities over allegations of deceptive
advertising.
HOMEWOOD FLOSSMOOR: Sued in Illinois Over Unlawful Suspensions
--------------------------------------------------------------
S.S, a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, Mr.
Simeon S. and Mrs. Angela S., on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Homewood Flossmoor High School District 233
Board of Education; Von Mansfield, Superintendent; Ryan Pitcock,
Principal of Homewood-Flossmoor High School; and Craig F. Antin,
Assistant Principal of Homewood-Flossmoor High School, Brett
Geijer, Dean of Students, Case No. 2016-CH-06883 (Ill. Ch., Ct.,
May 18, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' practice of imposing
year-long suspensions without adequate appeal.
The Defendants operate Homewood-Flossmoor High School in
Flossmoor, Cook County, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Candace Moore, Esq.
CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, INC.
100 N. LaSalle St., Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 888-4195
Facsimile: (312) 630-1127
E-mail: cmoore@clccrul.org
- and -
Charles D. Wysong, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
Facsimile: (312) 604-2665
E-mail: cwysong@hsplegal.com
JAY-JAY CABARET: Court Conditionally Certifies "Racey" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARTIN RACEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAY-JAY
CABARET, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 8228 (KPF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued an order
conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and authorizing the plaintiffs to send notice
to prospective collective action members.
A full-text copy of Judge Failla's May 23, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/5Gvjpg from Leagle.com.
Martin Racey, Kevin McDonald, Gary Williams, and Alex Abreu
brought the action against Jay-Jay Cabaret Inc. d/b/a Flash
Dancers, AAM Holding Corp. d/b/a Private Eyes, and 59 Murray
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a New York Dolls, along with their owners or
managers, Barry I. Lipsitz and Barry Lipsitz, Jr., asserting
claims under the FLSA, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), for
alleged failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation and for
violations of the notice and wage statement requirements of the
NYLL.
Martin Racey, Kevin McDonald, Gary Williams, Alex Abreu,
Plaintiffs, represented by Taylor Bell Graham --
graham@peltongraham.com -- Pelton & Associates, PC & Brent Edward
Pelton -- pelton@peltongraham.com -- Pelton Graham LLC.
Craig Ryan, Plaintiff, represented by Taylor Bell Graham, Pelton &
Associates, PC.
Barry Lipsitz, Barry Lipsitz, Jr., 59 Murray Enterprises, Inc.,
AAM Holding Corp., Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Jeffrey A. Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP, Howard Scott Davis -- hd@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP & Paul J Rutigliano -- pjr@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP.
JAY PEAK: Owner Operators Face Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a $500 million plan to redevelop Jay Peak Resort in Northern
Vermont was a Ponzi scheme that bilked people through the EB-5
investor visa program, three foreign citizens claim in Rutland,
Vt., a RICO class action.
The SEC filed six lawsuits across the country in April with
similar allegations against Jay Peak's owner-operators, Ariel
Quiros, William Stenger, et al., and financial institutions
involved in the project, including Raymond James Financial and
People's United Bank.
Jay Peak is 5 miles from the Canadian border in Vermont's
Northeast Kingdom, three sparsely populated counties known for
their wild, scenic beauty, and not particularly strong economic
base. Residents of the Kingdom viewed the Jay Peak project as an
economic lifesaver, as Quiros and Stenger promised to invest $500
million in the project, raising much of the money through the EB-5
program. The claimed the project would create 5,000 construction
jobs that would lead to 5,000 permanent jobs in 10 years.
An EB-5 investor visa allows a foreign citizen to qualify for
permanent U.S. residency if he or she invests $500,000 or more
into jobs in specified U.S. areas, and/or create 10 more U.S.
jobs.
In the May 17 federal class action, lead plaintiff James B. Shaw,
of England, says he invested more than $500,000 in a Jay Peak
project. His co-plaintiffs, from the Netherlands and Canada, say
they did so too.
Quiros and Stenger claimed they would revitalize the Jay Peak ski
resort with hotels, penthouse suites, lodges, townhomes, resort
amenities, an 18-hole golf course, and they'd throw in a
biomedical research facility too.
But it didn't happen that way, the investors and the SEC say. They
claim the defendants spent a lot of the money on themselves: $13.5
million of it to buy Jay Peak, $5.5 million for their legal fees,
$100 million to pay down a loan, commingling accounts, paying off
old investors with new money, and using money to support Quiros's
"lavish lifestyle," according to the new complaint.
"Quiros and Stenger were operating an elaborate Ponzi-like
scheme," the complaint states. "Investors in the EB-5 projects
were told they were investing in project-specific hotels,
cottages, a biomedical research facility or other projects. While
some of the funds were used for those projects, the majority of
the funds were commingled, misused, and diverted to pay for
unauthorized project, payments to earlier investors and personal
luxuries."
Raymond James & Associates enabled it, the plaintiffs say.
"The Raymond James defendants helped structure and execute this
deceptive scheme on behalf of Quiros in exchange for lucrative
fees and commissions," according to the complaint. "As Quiros
testified before the SEC, the Raymond James defendants were 'the
one who designed this whole program.'"
They accuse People's United Bank of mismanaging the escrow account
by allowing Quiros and Stenger to transfer money into their
Raymond James accounts, which were not controlled by the general
partners of the project.
They seek class certification and punitive damages for RICO
conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence and breach of contract.
They are represented by Patrick Bernal of Witten, Woolmington,
Campbell & Bernal of Manchester Center, and Kathleen Donovan-Maher
with Berman-DeValerio, of Boston.
KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Zayerz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. BC620938 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failing to pay all wages
including minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the California
Labor Code.
Kiewit Corporation is an employee-owned contractor based in Omaha,
Nebraska. Privately held, it is one of the largest contractors in
the world.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949)379-6251
KMART CORP: Settles FLSA Class Actions for $3.8 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Kmart Corp. has agreed to a $3.8 million settlement in federal
court in Trenton of two collective actions on behalf of assistant
managers who claim they were wrongly classified as exempt from
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state labor laws.
Plaintiffs in the case moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement May 24. With a class estimated at 422 individuals,
gross recovery would average roughly $9,000 per person, depending
on how long they worked for the company, according to the motion,
which seeks preliminary certification of the class and scheduling
of a final approval and fairness hearing. The settlement would
encompass a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Fischer v. Kmart, and another in the Western
District of New York, Hautur v. Kmart.
The suits claimed that the primary duties of the four named
plaintiffs and other members of the collective action class and
state class were required to operate cash registers, stock
shelves, clean the store, assist customers and unload trucks.
Their duties were largely the same as non-exempt, hourly
employees, according to the suit. The assistant managers' duties
did not include hiring, firing, disciplining or directing the work
of other employees, the suits claimed.
The suits sought unpaid overtime and liquidated damages as a
collective action under the FLSA, as well as damages as a class
action under the overtime laws of New Jersey, Maryland, New York
and Ohio.
The settlement was reached in February, following a full-day
mediation session in Chicago in December 2015 with Hunter Hughes
III of Hunter ADR in Atlanta. Kmart makes no concession of
liability or wrongdoing in connection with the case, and maintains
that its assistant managers are properly categorized as exempt
from overtime, according to the tentative settlement agreement.
The settlement calls for Kmart to pay a maximum amount of $3.8
million toward the settlement. The settlement calls for the
plaintiffs' attorneys to apply to the court for an award of fees
not to exceed one-third of the maximum settlement, or $1.27
million, and costs of up to $195,000. The settlement also
provides $7,500 for each of the four named plaintiffs.
After the attorney fees and costs and payments to named plaintiffs
are deducted from the maximum settlement amount, the remaining
funds are to be divided by the total number of weeks worked by all
claimants, yielding the preliminary weekly amount. Then, each
claimant would have the number of weeks worked multiplied by the
preliminary weekly amount. Any claimant whose payment comes to
less than $50 would have that amount rounded up to $50, the
grossed-up allocation amount. The remainder of the net settlement
amount would be divided by the number of weeks worked by claimants
who are not subject to grossed-up allocation, yielding a weekly
amount. Finally, claimants who were not subject to the grossed-up
allocation would calculate their payment by multiplying their
weeks worked by the weekly amount, according to court papers.
Class members will have the opportunity to opt out of the
settlement. But if more than 5 percent of class members opt out,
Kmart will have the opportunity to terminate the settlement,
according to court papers. The settlement calls for the Hautur
case to be transferred to the District of New Jersey for
settlement purposes.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Klafter and Seth Lesser of
Klafter, Olsen & Lesser in Rye Brook, New York, did not respond to
requests for comment on the settlement. James Walsh Jr. --
james.walsh@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in
Princeton, who represented Kmart, also did not respond to a
request for comment.
Howard Riefs, a spokesman for Sears Holding Corp., which owns
Kmart, said the company would not comment on the settlement.
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Braginton" Sues Over Faulty Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Braginton and Trevor Weir individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. L-3 Communications
EOtech, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00439-ODS (W.D. Mo., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover
actual, consequential, punitive and/or exemplary damages,
declaratory relief, costs, equitable remedies (including
disgorgement) and reasonable attorney fees resulting from
fraud/intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment/nondisclosure, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Acts and/or Consumer Protection Acts, Nevada Consumer
Protection Act, Nevada Revised Statutes (Implied Warranty of
Merchantability).
Plaintiff claims to have purchased a holographic weapon sighting
device from the Defendant that allegedly fails in cold
temperatures and in humid environments.
L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
designs, manufactures, and markets holographic weapon sights with
principal place of business at 1201 E. Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 48108.
L-3 Communications Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New
York, 10016.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: (816) 876-2600
Fax: (816) 221-8763
Email: timd@dollar-law.com
- and -
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Andrew M. Gonyea, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48703
Tel: (248) 841-2200
Fax: (248) 652-2852
Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com
amg@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Keith Altman, Esq.
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
Southfield, MI 48033
Tel: (516) 456-5885
Fax: (516) 795-7599
Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com
- and -
Ari Kresch, Esq.
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
Southfield, MI 48033
Tel: (248) 565-2099
Fax: (248) 436-6858
LAWN MASTERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Gonzalez, and Rodmiro Gonzalez on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Frank Caputo and Lawn Masters
Landscape Contracting, Inc., Case No. 2025/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct.,
May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the under New York Labor Law.
The Defendants own and operate a landscape services company
located at 125 North Wantagh Avenue, Levittown, New York 11756.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN, LLP
91 N. Franklin Street
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 280-4600
Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Wertz" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Wertz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Renaud Laplanche, Carrie Dolan, and LendingClub
Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-02670 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.
LendingClub Corporation operates a lending company, headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
520 Third Street, Suite 108
Oakland, CA 94607
E-mail: lesley@blockesq.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617)398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
jake@blockesq.com
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces New Securities Class Suit Over 2014 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that peer-to-peer lender LendingClub is facing another securities
class action by shareholders peeved that its stock price has
dropped 75 percent since its 2014 initial public offering.
The case is Courthouse News' top download for May 24.
Alton Consulting filed a securities class action against
LendingClub and numerous other defendants this past May 20, on
behalf of individuals who purchased securities during
LendingClub's December 2014 IPO through the open marking period up
to May 2016, claiming multiple violations of the Securities Act.
LendingClub raised $870 million during its IPO after selling 58
million shares of stock for $15 per share, making it the biggest
technology IPO of that year. The share price ultimately closed at
$23.43 per share.
By May 19, 2016, however, the stock had dropped to a low of $3.70
per share -- 75 percent less than its IPO -- after investors
learned that the defendants had concealed material information
regarding LendingClub's seriously deficient internal controls when
evaluating, underwriting and extending loans, according to the
class action.
Founded in 2006, LendingClub touted that it was "transforming the
banking system to make credit more affordable and investing more
rewarding" by operating at lower cost that traditional banks so it
could pass the savings on to borrowers through lower rates and
provide investors with "solid returns," the complaint says.
The lending company also marketed itself as being independent of
Wall Street even though Silicon Valley venture capitalists and
prominent members of Wall Street increasingly controlled and
financed its activities. The company's business model also lacked
any internal controls, the shareholders say.
According to the complaint, LendingClub did not disclose that it
issued loans at usurious interest rates that were unsustainable,
and that without the usurious rates the company would not be
attractive to investors. Furthermore, company investors could not
enforce the rates since they violated states' usury laws, the
shareholders say.
The truth finally began to emerge on May 9, 2016, when LendingClub
publicly disclosed that company chairman and CEO Renaud Laplanche
was being forced to resign after an internal review found evidence
that he had not disclosed his own interests in Cirrix Capital, a
third-party fund the company had been contemplating investing in.
The company also reported that it needed to take steps to fix
other identified internal-control weaknesses after it found its
director John Mack also had interests in Cirrix Capital, and that
three other senior managers were being fired or asked to resign
due to sketchy financial reporting uncovered in the first quarter
of 2016, the complaint continues.
"LendingClub confirmed that it had identified material weaknesses
in its internal controls over financial reporting and 'lack of
transparent communication and appropriate oversight' of dealing
with investors," the complaint says. "LendingClub said that it was
contemplating a dramatic shift in its business model and that 'it
had been contacted by regulatory authorities requesting
information related to the events surrounding the resignation of
Mr. Laplanche."
Numerous media outlets reported on allegations of fraudulent
concealment by LendingClub, which included reports that the
Justice Department had launched a criminal probe, that a criminal
grand jury had issued a subpoena the week Laplanche announced his
forced resignation and that the Securities and Exchange Commission
had been in contact with the company, the shareholders say.
Alton Consulting seeks damages for violations of the Securities
Act for itself and other class member investors, and costs and
expenses associated with the litigation.
The class is represented by Alexandra P. Summer --
asummer@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of
Burlingame, California. Summer did not return a request for
comment by press time.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of "Moyle" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part and
remanded the case of GEOFFREY MOYLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves; PAULINE ARWOOD, an individual, on behalf of
themselves; THOMAS ROLLASON, an individual, on behalf of
themselves; JEANNIE SANDERS, an individual, on behalf of
themselves, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT PLAN
RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Massachusetts company; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP INC., a
Massachusetts company, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Nos.
13-56330, 13-56412 (9th Cir.)
Appellants are former employees of Old Golden Eagle Insurance
Company. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company purchased Golden Eagle
through a conservatorship sale. Appellants became employees of
Liberty Mutual. Appellants state that while the sale was underway,
Liberty Mutual told Appellants that they would receive past
service credit for the time they worked with Golden Eagle under
Liberty Mutual's retirement plan. But, after Liberty Mutual
purchased Golden Eagle, Liberty Mutual denied Appellants' claims
for past service credit.
Liberty Mutual argues that it never made any representation to
Appellants that they would receive past service credit for their
time with Golden Eagle. Liberty Mutual also argues that under the
terms of the retirement plan, Appellants are entitled only to past
service credit for purposes of eligibility, vesting, early
retirement, and spousal benefits, and not for retirement benefits
accrual.
Appellants filed a class action against Liberty Mutual for
violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
asserting that they are entitled to past service credit under the
terms of the retirement plan, under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B), that they are entitled to equitable relief under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), that Liberty Mutual violated its duty
to provide Appellants with documents relevant to their claim; and
Liberty Mutual violated its duty to disclose information about
past service retirement credit in its Summary Plan Descriptions.
Appellants seek the equitable remedies of reformation and
surcharge for both claims (2) and (4).
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty
Mutual on all four claims. Appellants appealed on claims (1), (2),
and (4). Liberty Mutual cross-appealed, alleging that appellants'
suit is time-barred and that class certification was improper.
Circuit Judge Pregerson finds that the appellants are not entitled
to past service credit under the terms of the Retirement Plan
therefore he affirms the district court's grant of summary
judgment as to claim I under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B).2.
Judge Pregerson reversed the district court's grant of summary
judgment as to claim II under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), and
remanded the case for determinations of fact and equitable relief
in the form of reformation and surcharge.
Judge Pregerson affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment as to claim IV under 29 C.F.R. Sections 2520.102-3(1) and
2520.102-2(a), and affirmed the district court's grant of class
certification.
A copy of Circuit Judge Pregerson's opinion dated May 20, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/VLSWk0from Leagle.com.
Matthew Butler -- mbutler@butler-firm.com -- Michael Olinik --
molinik@butler-firm.com -- at The Butler Firm; Jack Winters Jr. --
at Winters & Associates; Craig Nicholas --
cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Alex Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- at Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP
Ashley Abel -- AbelA@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C.,
for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Consuelo M. Callahan and
District Judge Stanley Allen Bastian.
LINCARE INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Culley" Moved to June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA CULLEY, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
LINCARE INC., a Corporation; ALPHA RESPIRATORY INC., a
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants (E.D.
Cal.), the June 16, 2016 hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is vacated and continued to June 30, 2016, at 2:00
p.m. All Opposition and Reply briefing deadlines shall be set
accordingly based on that continued date.
A copy of the Court's May 25, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XaZ0GP from Leagle.com.
Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Blumenthal,
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.
Lincare Inc., Defendant, represented by David Cheng --
dcheng@fordharrison.com -- and Todd S. Aidman --
taidman@fordharrison.com -- at Ford and Harrison LLP.
Alpha Respiratory Inc., Defendant, represented by David Cheng and
Todd S. Aidman, Ford and Harrison LLP.
LONG BEACH: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Martinez, individually and on behalves of other individuals
similarly situated v. Long Beach Pancakes, Inc. and Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. BC620886 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 20160,
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees for
all time worked including failing to pay proper amounts for
overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code.
Long Beach Pancakes, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Los
Angeles, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young W. Ryu, Esq.
Kelly Kim, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (888)365- 8686
Facsimile: (800)576-1170
E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Allows Subclass to Intervene in "Smith"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chanda Smith, a disabled student enrolled in Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California in 1993. The Chanda Smith plaintiffs sought a number of
improvements in the provision of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act including, the centralization and computerization of
all students' records, the provision of regular training to
administrators as to their legal and professional obligations to
students with disabilities, the recruiting and hiring of more
credentialed special education personnel, and the provision of a
full continuum of special education and related services to
students with disabilities at sites as close to the home of such
students as possible.
A sub-class of moderately to severely disabled children -- the
Appellants -- moved to intervene in the Chanda Smith Litigation.
Appellants seek to intervene to challenge the legality of a new
policy, adopted by LAUSD in 2012 as part of a renegotiation of the
Chanda Smith parties' settlement. The settlement requires a class
of LAUSD's most severely disabled students to go to the same
schools as the district's general, non-disabled student body.
The district judge denied appellants' motion to intervene.
Circuit Judge Bea reversed the district court's denial of
appellants' motion to intervene and remanded the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
"We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Appellants' motion as untimely, and further erred when it
found intervention unnecessary to protect Appellants' interest in
ensuring the receipt of public education consistent with their
disabilities and federal law," Judge Bea said.
The case is CHANDA SMITH; ELIZA THOMPSON, Guardian ad Litem for
Chanda Smith, individually & on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated; JAVIER MEJIA; GLORIA MEJIA; QUINN SULLIVAN;
MADO MOST, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a California public entity; ROY ROMER, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the LA Unified School District,
Defendants-Appellees, v. APRIL MUNOZ; JULIA FLORES; CHERYL
AYAPANA; V. P.; A. F.; M. H.; J. A., Movants-Appellants. CHANDA
SMITH; ELIZA THOMPSON, Guardian ad Litem for Chanda Smith,
individually & on behalf of all other persons similarly situated;
JAVIER RSWL-GHK MEJIA; GLORIA MEJIA; QUINN SULLIVAN; MADO MOST,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and APRIL MUNOZ; JULIA FLORES; CHERYL
AYAPANA; V. P.; A. F.; M. H.; J. A., Movants, and MINA LEE;
FRANCES MORENO, Movants-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a California public entity, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 14-
55224, 14-55256 (9th Cir.).
A copy of Circuit Judge Bea's opinion dated May 20, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/1AeGN4from Leagle.com
David Ward German -- dgerman@navlaw.net -- Robert Myers at Newman,
Aaronson & Vanaman; Catherine Blakemore -- Melinda Bird --
melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org -- Candis Watson Bowles at
Disability Rights California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Barrett Green -- bgreen@littler.com -- Maggy Athanasious --
mathanasious@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.; D. Deneen
Cox, Associate General Counsel, and Belinda D. Stith, Interim
Chief Education and Litigation Counsel, LAUSD Office of General
Counsel, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee Los
Angeles Unified School District.
Eric Scott Jacobson -- ejacoblaw@earthlink.net -- Law Offices of
Eric S. Jacobson; Suzanne Nancy Snowden --
s.snowden@sjmlawgroup.com -- at SJM Law Group, LLP, for Movants-
Appellants Mina Lee, et al.
Seymour I. Amster at Law Offices of Seymour I. Amster; Angela
Gilmartin at Law Offices of Angela Gilmartina, for Movants-
Appellants April Munoz, et al.
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Carlos T. Bea, Jerome Farris and Richard R.
Clifton.
MACY'S WEST: Faces Class Suit Over False Discounts
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service, reported that Macy's West and
Bloomingdale's advertised discounts from false original prices, a
class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court.
MDL 1827: N.D. Cal. Judge Closes Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston ruled that all of the cases in the
multi-district litigation, IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 07-md-01827-SI, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.), are
now closed, and accordingly the Court directs the Clerk to close
the master docket of this MDL. The Clerk shall send a copy of this
order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict
Litigation. A copy of Judge Ilston's order dated May 25, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/A01Fd8 from Leagle.com.
The parties to the MDL are:
Martin Quinn, Special Master, Pro Se.
Martin Quinn, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn, JAMS.
Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, Pro Se.
Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn,
JAMS.
Giles Patricia, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel W. Lanham, Jr.,
Lanham & Blackwell & Ian Otto, Straus & Boies LLP.
Gina Cerda, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.
Linda Klare, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L.
Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Hausfeld, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP & Richard Martin
Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff, represented by Beatrice B.
Nguyen, Crowell & Moring LLP, Gregory D. Call, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Andre Mauricio Pauka, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
Bryan Leach, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Daniel
Robert Brody, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and Scott LLP, Fred H.
Bartlit, Jr., Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and Scott LLP, Karma
Micaela Giulianelli, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP,
pro hac vice, Lester C Houtz, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and
Scott LLP, Mark E Ferguson, Barlitt Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
Mark S. Ouweleen, Attorney at Law & Suzanne E. Rode, Crowell &
Moring LLP.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd
Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey
H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell
& Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven,
III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H.
Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell
& Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome
A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell &
Moring LLP.
Nokia Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Parker Miller,
Alston & Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird LLP,
Edward Paul Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth
Johnston, Alston & Bird LLP, Kacy McCaffrey Brake, Alston and Bird
LLP, Kevin Michael Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen Bojko,
Alston & Bird, Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson, ALSTON
BIRD LLP, Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen, Alston
and Bird, Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie Cecile
Williams, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice & Donald MacKaye Houser,
Alston & Bird LLP.
Nokia Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian Parker Miller, Alston
& Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird LLP, Edward Paul
Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth Johnston, Alston &
Bird LLP, Kacy McCaffrey Brake, Alston and Bird LLP, Kevin Michael
Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen Bojko, Alston & Bird,
Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson, ALSTON BIRD LLP,
Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen, Alston and Bird,
Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie Cecile Williams,
Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice & Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston &
Bird LLP.
AT & T Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua
Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP &
Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Datacomm, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Mobility LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua
Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP &
Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Operations, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
AT & T Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Motorola, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H.
Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Electrograph Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Electrograph Technologies, Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason
C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston and
Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Douglas R.
Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston
& Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin Whitehead,
Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Rodney J
Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger, Alston & Bird
LLP.
Dell Products, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck,
Alston and Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP,
Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer
Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin
Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger,
Alston & Bird LLP.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of
Lingel H. Winters, Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Craig C.
Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty &
Bennett, P.A., Derek G. Howard, Howard Law Firm, Jack Wing Lee,
Minami Tamaki LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,
Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Robert William Finnerty, Girardi
Keese, Steven J Foley, Hellmuth and Johnson PLLC, Tracy R.
Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Glicel E Sumagaysay, Law Office
of Glicel Sumagaysay, Gregory W. Landry, LaMarca & Landry, P.C. &
Marvin A. Miller, Miller Law LLC.
State of Oregon, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones &
Wilder, LLP, Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley, Michael G.
Neff, Haglund Kelley Jones & Wilder LLP, Shay S. Scott, Haglund
Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP, pro hac vice & Tim David Nord,
Oregon Department of Justice.
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Eric B.
Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Marc Anthony
Pilotin, U.S. Department of Labor, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Robert George Retana, Pearson Simon
& Warshaw, LLP & William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP.
Tracfone Wireless, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford
Esau, James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA &
Robert L. Ciotti, Carlton Fields, P.A..
Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law, Bernice
Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Michael A. Geibelson,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
L.L.P..
Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Matthew David Taggart, Attorney
at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura
Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Michael A.
Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..
Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law, Bernice
Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Michael A. Geibelson,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P..
Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law, Bernice
Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P..
Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law, Bernice
Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth
Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P..
Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Kmart Corp, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell
and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes,
Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Newegg Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell
and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes,
Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Eastman Kodak Company, Plaintiff, represented by Blaire Zina
Stokes, Nixon Peabody, John R. Foote, Nixon Peabody LLP & Karl
David Belgum, Nixon Peabody LLP.
SB Liquidation Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Diamond,
Diamond McCarthy LLP, Erica W. Harris, Susan Godfrey LLP, Jason
Paul Fulton, Diamond McCarthy LLP, Jim McCarthy, Diamond McCarthy
LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP, McCarthy D. James,
Diamond McCarthy LLP & Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Cori Gordon
Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, Cori G. Moore, Perkins Coil LLP, David
Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP,
Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Joren Surya
Ayala-Bass, The Law Office of Philip A. Leider, Nicholas H.
Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins
Coie LLP & Troy Philip Sauro, Perkins Coie LLP.
Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Plaintiff, represented
by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.
Sony Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Mark
Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret
Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.
Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Johnny William Carter,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Jordan
Connors, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Marc M. Seltzer,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Parker C. Folse, III, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Rachel S. Black, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Robert J. Pfister, Klee,
Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP.
MetroPCS Wireless Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C.,
Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart H. Singer,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome
A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Carlis, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Brooke Ashley-May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
Kathryn Parsons Hoek, Susman Godfrey LLP & Parker C Folse, III,
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP.
BestBuy.com, L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.,
Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Edward David Lodgen, Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan
Miller and Ciresi & Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..
Benjamin Larry Luber, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O.
Scarpulla, Heather T. Rankie, Zelle LLP, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle LLP
& Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.
Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V.
Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Craig C.
Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of
Francis O. Scarpulla, Jack Wing Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP, Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Qianwei Fu, Zelle LLP & Robert S.
Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..
Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,
pro hac vice, Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner & William A.
Issacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart H. Singer,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & William A. Issacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher V.
Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus LeClair,
McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.
Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome
A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff, represented by Julie A. Bays, Office
of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Nicholas William Armstrong,
McCallum, Methvin, Terrell, P.C., P. Clayton Eubanks, Office of
the Oklahoma Attorney General, Phillip W. McCallum, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell, P.C. & Tom Bates, Office of the Oklahoma
Attorney General.
Neco Alliance LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
Electronic Express, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip F.
Cramer, SHERRARD & ROE, PLC & Ryan Thomas Holt, Sherrard and Roe,
PLC.
Barbara Cochran, Plaintiff, represented by John Jacob Pentz, Class
Action Fairness Group.
Kevin Luke, Plaintiff, represented by John Jacob Pentz, Class
Action Fairness Group.
Rockwell Automation Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David P Ross,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Proview Group Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Baute,
BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute & Tidus
LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
LLP & Laura Elise Robbins, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP.
Proview Optronics Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D.
Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Laura Elise Robbins,
BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP.
Proview Technology Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D.
Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute &
Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP & Laura Elise Robbins, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP.
Proview Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Baute,
BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute & Tidus
LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Laura Elise Robbins, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP & Marc
Anthony Pilotin, U.S. Department of Labor.
Johnny Kessel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Alison Paul, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Gerri Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Maria Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Wayne Marshall, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Geri Maxwell, class member/objector, Plaintiff, represented by
George Cochran.
Acer America Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford
Esau & James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.
Gateway, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford Esau &
James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.
Gateway U.S. Retail, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford
Esau & James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.
Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Scott
Greene, Bryan Cave, LLP, George Patrick Watson, Bryan Cave LLP &
Lindsay Sklar Johnson, Bryan Cave LLP.
Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LFG National Capital, LLC, Creditor, represented by Jonathan C.
Cross, Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, Scott S. Balber,
Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, Gregory Caesar Nuti,
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP & Valerie Anne Bantner Peo,
Buchalter Nemer.
YRC, Inc., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law
Group.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com
-- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Nathan P. Eimer --
neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Brad D. Brian --
Brad.Brian@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher
Marisak Lynch -- Christopher.Lynch@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau -- cnedeau@nossaman.com --
Nossaman LLP, David M. Simon -- dsimon@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer
Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart -- Gregory.Weingart@mto.com --
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House --
hollyhouse@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, James B. Speta,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Justin Samuel Weinstein-Tull, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings
Janofsky & Walker LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger,
Paul Hastings LLP, Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil,
Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by John E.
Hall -- jhall@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman -- DSuleiman@cov.com --
Covington & Burling LLP, Derek Ludwin, One CityCenter, Elizabeth
Catherine Arens -- EArens@cov.com -- Covington and Burling,
L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson -- JDavidson@cov.com -- Covington
& Burling LLP, John Stewart Playforth -- JPlayforth@cov.com --
Covington and Burling LLP, Neil K. Roman -- NRoman@cov.com --
Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick -- RWick@cov.com -- Covington
& Burling LLP, Steven D Sassaman -- SSassaman@cov.com -- Covington
and Burling & Timothy C. Hester -- THester@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling.
Sharp Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Andrew Dale Lanphere,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce H. Searby, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, John M. Grenfell, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw PittmanLLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Joshua
Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Ryan Takemoto, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.
Sharp Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R.
Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Andrew Dale
Lanphere, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce H. Searby,
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Craig A.
Benson, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Fusae Nara,
Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, John M. Grenfell, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
PittmanLLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP & Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman.
Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case LLP, John Mark
Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch McAhren, White and Case
LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Heather Marie Abrams, White and Case LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto,
White and Case LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White & Case LLP & J.
Frank Hogue, White Case LLP.
Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd., Defendant,
represented by John H. Chung, White & Case LLP & Wayne A. Cross,
White & Case LLP.
Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al & John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.
Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al & John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Courtney Lynn Landis, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al & John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.
NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brendan Paul Ruddy,
Duane Morris LLP, Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP, Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane
Morris LLP.
NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Brendan Paul
Ruddy, Duane Morris LLP, Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP,
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic
Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.
NEC Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Brendan Paul Ruddy, Duane Morris
LLP, Edward G. Biester, III, Duane Morris LLP, Joseph Patrick
Audal, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris
LLP.
AU Optronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman
LLP, Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Joseph
Pascal Russoniello, United States Attorney's Office, Kirk
Christopher Jenkins, Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold, Michael F.
Healy, Esq., Sedwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP, Natasha A Saggar
Sheth, Nossaman LLP, Patrick J. Richard, Nossaman LLP, Dennis
Patrick Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, John D. Cline, Law Office of
John D. Cline, K.C. Maxwell, Esq., Law Office of K.C. Maxwell,
Salezka Loirett Aguirre, Nossaman LLP & Veronica L Harris,
Nossaman LLP.
AU Optronics Corporation America, Defendant, represented by John
C. McGuire, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Matthew Clark
Lovell, Nicolaides LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman LLP,
Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jason Haruo
Wilson, Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP, Jerome Cary Roth,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Kirk Christopher Jenkins, Sedgwick
Detert Moran Arnold, Michael F. Healy, Esq., Sedwick Detert Moran
& Arnold LLP, Natasha A Saggar Sheth, Nossaman LLP, Patrick J.
Richard, Nossaman LLP, Dennis Patrick Riordan, Riordan & Horgan,
John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, Joseph Pascal
Russoniello, United States Attorney's Office, K.C. Maxwell, Esq.,
Law Office of K.C. Maxwell, Salezka Loirett Aguirre, Nossaman LLP
& Veronica L Harris, Nossaman LLP.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Greg
D Andres, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, John Lyle Williams, Jr.,
Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public
Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael
Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott,
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra
West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Wilmer Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP,
Bradley R Hansen, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell & William
D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein
Jaeger LLP, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Robert
E. Freitas, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, William S Farmer,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.
HannStar Display Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins, Daniel Murray
Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Elizabeth Ann Gillen, Simpson Thacher
and Bartlett, Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
James Glenn Kreissman, Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, Jason
Matthew Bussey, Simpson Thatcher and Barlett LLP, Jerry Chen,
Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP, Melissa Derr Schmidt, Simpson
Thatcher and Bartlett LLP & Yi-Chin Ho, Latham and Watkins LLP.
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E.
Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling LLP, Derek Ludwin, One
CityCenter, Elizabeth Catherine Arens, Covington and Burling,
L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington & Burling LLP, John
Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP, Neil K. Roman,
Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling LLP,
Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling, Timothy C. Hester,
Covington & Burling & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Kimberly Linnell Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.
NEC Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Greg D Andres,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester,
Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's
Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell
LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob
Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS
CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra
West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell &
William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.
NEC Electronic America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Brendan Paul Ruddy, Duane Morris
LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.
Chi Mei Corporation, Defendant, represented by Greg D Andres,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester,
Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's
Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, LiJia Gong,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell &
William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.
Nexgen Mediatech USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Greg D Andres,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester,
Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's
Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell
LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob
Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS
CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra
West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Wilmer Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP,
Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis
Polk and Wardwell LLP.
NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Brendan Paul Ruddy,
Duane Morris LLP, George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP &
Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
E. Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling LLP, Derek
Ludwin, One CityCenter, Elizabeth Catherine Arens, Covington and
Burling, L.L.P., Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington & Burling
LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP, Neil K.
Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling
LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling & Timothy C. Hester,
Covington & Burling.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by
John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley
R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B.
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk
and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis
Polk and Wardwell LLP.
IPS Alpha Technology, LTD., dismissed from IP amended complaint on
2/21/08, Defendant, represented by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Epson Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Kimberly Linnell Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn, Melvin R. Goldman, Morrison & Foerster, Sean David Unger,
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor &
Company Law Offices, LLP & David Lawrence Meyer, Morrison &
Foerster.
Nexgen Mediatech, Inc., Defendant, represented by Greg D Andres,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester,
Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's
Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell
LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob
Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS
CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra
West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell &
William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.
Tatung Company of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Joel Calcar Willard,
Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein
Jaeger LLP & Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Toshiba America Electronics Components Inc, Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White &
Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch
McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Heather Marie Abrams, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White & Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue,
White Case LLP.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.,, Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White &
Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch
McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Heather Marie Abrams, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White & Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue,
White Case LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Brad D. Brian, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David M. Simon,
Emier Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson
LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B. Speta, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Justin
Samuel Weinstein-Tull, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings
Janofsky & Walker LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger,
Paul Hastings LLP, Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil,
Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do.
Toshiba Mobile Display Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case
LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch McAhren,
White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya Kobori,
White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Heather
Marie Abrams, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case LLP,
Michael E. Hamburger, White & Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue, White
Case LLP.
Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP.
Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Limited, Defendant, represented by Erin
Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Lisa Cox Ghannoum, Baker
Hostetler, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Peter Wethrell James, Baker
Hostetler, Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Ernest E.
Vargo, Jr., Baker Hostetler LLP.
Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Sam N. Dawood, Law Offices of Sam N. Dawood,
Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Nick Steven
Verwolf, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dylan Ian
Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor, Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Dylan Ian Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor,
Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.
Chimei Innolux Corp., Defendant, represented by Greg D Andres,
Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal Public
Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON,
Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan
Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell,
Sheila R Adams, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley
R Hansen, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell & William D.
Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S.
Fitzwater, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
Tatung Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP & William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & Bradley R Hansen.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Brendan P.
Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S. Fitzwater, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.
Renesas Electronics America, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.
NEC Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Brendan Paul
Ruddy, Duane Morris LLP, Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP,
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic
Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin
Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ernest E. Vargo, Jr., Baker
Hostetler LLP, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler
LLP.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Defendant, represented by Daniel J
Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm.
Barbara Cochran, Movant, represented by Joshua Reuben Furman,
Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation.
Ricoh Electronics, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented by Paul
S. Chan, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg,
P.C..
Apple Inc., Interested Party, represented by Caroline Nason
Mitchell, Jones Day & Robert Allan Mittelstaedt, Jones Day.
Douglas C. Giordan, Interested Party, Pro Se.
Alexandra Brudy, Interested Party, represented by Robert John
Stroj, Lanak & Hanna, P.C..
Joseph M. Alioto, Interested Party, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm & David J. Cook, Cook Collection
Attorneys.
American University, Claimant, represented by Deborah Ellen
Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP.
CA Technologies, Inc., Claimant, represented by Deborah Ellen
Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP.
Tiffany and Company, Claimant, represented by Deborah Ellen
Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP.
Michael J. Rinis, Objector, represented by N. Albert Bacharach,
Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. P.A..
Shannon Cashion, Objector, represented by Steve A Miller, Steve A.
Miller, P.C..
Andrea Kane, Objector, represented by Grenville Thomas Pridham,
Law Office of Grenville Pridham.
Geri Maxwell, Objector, represented by George Cochran & John Jacob
Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group.
Johnny Kessel, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Alison Paul, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Ira Conner Erwin, Objector, represented by Christopher Andress
Bandas, Bandas Law Firm, P.C..
Luis Mario Santana, Objector, represented by Christopher Andress
Bandas, Bandas Law Firm, P.C..
Dale Keena, Objector, represented by N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., N.
Albert Bacharach, Jr. P.A. & Paul Rothstein.
Ira Conner Erwin, Objector, represented by Christopher Andress
Bandas, Bandas Law Firm, P.C..
Stefan Rest, Objector, represented by Christopher Andress Bandas,
Bandas Law Firm, P.C..
Luis Mario Santana, Objector, represented by Christopher Andress
Bandas, Bandas Law Firm, P.C..
Corporate Broadcast Company, Objector, represented by Micah R.
Jacobs, Jacobs Law Group SF & Brian Michael Torres, Sheftall and
Torres, P.A..
Maria Marshall, Objector, represented by George Cochran.
Leveta Chesser, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Margot Bradley, Objector, represented by Brian Michael Torres,
Sheftall and Torres, P.A. & Brian M. Torres.
Alexander Martinez, Objector, represented by Brian Michael Torres,
Sheftall and Torres, P.A..
Margot Bradley, Objector, represented by Brian M. Torres, One S.E.
Third Avenue & Brian Michael Torres, Sheftall and Torres, P.A..
CBC, Inc., Objector, represented by Brian M. Torres & Brian
Michael Torres, Sheftall and Torres, P.A..
Alex Martinez, Objector, represented by Brian M. Torres & Brian
Michael Torres, Sheftall and Torres, P.A..
State of California, Amicus, represented by Adam Miller, CA Dept
of Justice & Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's
Office.
State of South Carolina, Amicus, represented by Susan Foxworth
Campbell, McGowan Hood and Felder.
ePlus Group, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Keith Leslie
Meeker, Attorney at Law.
Julius N. Dunmore, Jr., Miscellaneous, represented by Alan J
Sherwood, Law Office of of Alan J. Sherwood & Paul Rothstein.
Shannon Cashion, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by Steve A
Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Kelly Kress, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by John C.
Kress, The Kress Law Firm, LLC & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller,
P.C..
W. Christopher McDonough, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by
Jonathan E. Fortman, Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC &
Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Mark Schulte, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by J. Scott
Kessinger & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C..
Keena Dale, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by N. Albert
Bacharach, Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. P.A..
Charles W Daff, Class Claimant, Trustee, represented by Leo J.
Presiado, Brown Rudnick LLP.
United States Antitrust Division,Department of Justice,
Intervenor, represented by Peter K. Huston, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP,
Alexandra Jill Shepard, U.S. Department of Justice, David J. Ward,
U.S. Department of Justice, Antritrust Divsion, E. Kate Patchen,
U.S. Department of Justice, Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Micah Lanielle Rubbo, U.S. Department
of Justice & Michael L. Scott, Antitrust Division.
State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois
Attorney General, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren
Jones & Wilder, LLP & Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley.
State of Washington, Intervenor, represented by Brady R. Johnson,
Attorney General of Washington, Blake Lee Harrop, Office of the
Attorney General, Jonathan A Mark, Attorney General of Washington,
Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder, LLP,
Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley & Tina E. Kondo, Senior
Assistant Attorney General.
NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Brendan Paul Ruddy, Duane Morris
LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Philips Electronics North America Corp., Intervenor, represented
by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell.
Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by
Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Leah Nylen, Intervenor, Pro Se.
State of Mississippi, Intervenor, represented by Carolyn Glass
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Geoffrey Morgan, Office of the
Mississippi Attorney General, Jim Hood, Office of the Mississippi
Attorney General & Meredith M. Aldridge, Office of the Mississippi
Attorney General.
Chris Donnelly, Intervenor, Pro Se.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Office Depot, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Stuart H.
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C.
McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul
Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Office Depot, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Stuart H.
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory
J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
Interbond Corporation of America, Counter-defendant, represented
by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
Interbond Corporation of America, Counter-defendant, represented
by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by Brooke Ashley-
May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C.
McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul
Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
T-Mobile USA Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by Brooke Ashley-
May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
ABC Appliance, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Counter-defendant,
represented by Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory
J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
ABC Appliance, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Counter-defendant,
represented by Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C.
McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul
Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C.
McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul
Hastings LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.
Jaco Electronics, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP.
Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Counter-defendant,
represented by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Richard
James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L. Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP,
Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon
Christine Leong, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V.
Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP.
Rockwell Automation Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by David
P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, Pro Se, David P Ross,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Compucom Systems Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, Pro Se, Christopher V.
Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus LeClair,
McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, Pro Se.
Viewsonic Corporation, Counter-defendant, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, Pro Se, Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring &
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, Pro Se.
Acer America Corporation, Counter-defendant, represented by David
Bedford Esau & James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
PA.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, Pro Se, David Bedford
Esau & James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.
LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Brad D. Brian,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David
M. Simon, Eimer Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B. Speta,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Justin Samuel Weinstein-Tull, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky &
Walker LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger, Paul
Hastings LLP, Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil,
Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do.
Proview Technology, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Mark
D. Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute
& Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Laura Elise Robbins, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP &
Marc Anthony Pilotin, U.S. Department of Labor.
LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Brad D. Brian,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David
M. Simon, Eimer Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B. Speta,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson,
Justin Samuel Weinstein-Tull, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings
Janofsky & Walker LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger,
Paul Hastings LLP, Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer
Stahl LLP, Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil,
Eimer Stahl LLP & Truc Thanh Do.
Proview Technology, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Mark
D. Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute
& Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Laura Elise Robbins, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP &
Marc Anthony Pilotin, U.S. Department of Labor.
MDL 2555: Coca Cola Must Defend Against Labeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants
The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., BCI Coca-
Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, and Coca-Cola Bottling
Company of Sonora, California, in a multi-district litigation in
which the Plaintiffs allege that Coca-Cola has represented,
affirmatively and by material omissions, that Coke is "and always
has been, free of artificial flavors and chemical preservatives,
when in reality, it contains" phosphoric acid.
Pursuant to the Court's minute order following the case management
conference, the parties may now begin Phase II fact discovery. The
Court sets these specific dates and deadlines:
-- The deadline to complete fact discovery on class
certification shall be September 23, 2016.
-- The last day to disclose experts on class certification
shall be October 7, 2016.
-- The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts on class
certification shall be October 21, 2016.
-- The deadline to complete expert discovery on class
certification shall be November 23, 2016.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification shall be December 9, 2016.
The Plaintiffs are George Engurasoff, Paul Merritt, Joshua Ogden,
Ronald Sowizrol, Michelle Marino, Yocheved Lazaroff, Rachel Dube
and Thomas Woods. They allege that:
-- although phosphoric acid is included on the
ingredients list, Coca-Cola failed to disclose the
fact that it is, and is used as, an artificial
flavoring and chemical preservative;
-- the phrase "no artificial flavors. no preservatives
added. since 1886.," which appears on certain Coke
products, is an affirmative misrepresentation,
because Coke contains phosphoric acid, which
Coca-Cola uses as an artificial flavoring and a
chemical preservative; and
-- the phrase "original formula," is false, because
"the composition of Coca-Cola has repeatedly
changed over time," and the changes include "the
addition of artificial ingredients like phosphoric
acid."
The case is, IN RE COCA-COLA PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION (II). This document relates to all actions,
Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW (N.D. Cal.).
A copy of the Order dated May 19, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/jCeywU from Leagle.com.
George Engurasoff, Plaintiff, represented by:
Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
Pratt & Associates
1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
San Jose, CA 95126
Tel: 408.369.0800
- and -
Bradley F Silverman, Esq.
Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
Fleischman Law Firm
565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 880-9571
E-mail: bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com
keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Esq.
Lovelace Law Firm, P.A.
12870 US Hwy 98 W., Suite 200
Miramar Beach, Fl 32550
Tel: 850-837-6020
Fax: 850-837-4093
E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com
- and -
Gene M. Zona Jones, Esq.
Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
490 Park Street
PO Box 4905
Beaumont, TX 77704-4905
Tel: 409-835-6000
Fax: 409-813-8618
E-mail: gzona@provostumphrey.com
- and -
Robert L. Plotz, Esq.
Law Office of Robert L. Plotz
565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 646-543-1812
Fax: 646-626-6418
E-mail: law@plotz.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
Barrett Law Group
2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
Oxford, MS 38655
Tel: 662.380.5018
Fax: 866.430.5459
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
Joshua Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt
& Associates, Bradley F Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, Dewitt
Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, Gene M. Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
LLP, pro hac vice, Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm &
Robert L. Plotz.
Julia Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by:
Sydney Jay Hall, Esq.
Sydney J Hall Law Office
1308 Old Bayshore Hwy Ste 220
Burlingame, CA 94010
and by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group.
Ayanna Nobles, Plaintiff, represented by Sydney Jay Hall, Attorney
at Law, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group.
Paul Merritt, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The
Fleischman Law Firm, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Mark
Leland Knutson, Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group & Mark L. Knutson, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.
Bristol I. Aumiller, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Lucas Lanasa, Howard & Associates, P.A.,
Phillip Timothy Howard, Howard and Associates, P.A., Tammy Beth
Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group.
Yocheved Lazaroff, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Bradley F Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group & Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman
Law Firm.
Rachel Dube, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt &
Associates, Bradley F Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group & Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm.
Ronald Sowizrol, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman,
The Fleischman Law Firm, Kristofer Scott Riddle, Clifford Law
Offices, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, Robert Anthony Clifford, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., pro hac
vice.
Michelle Marino, Plaintiff, represented by:
Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
Mirabella Law, LLC
132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 580-8270
Fax: (617) 583-1905
and by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bonnie Prober, U.S.
Department of Justice, Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com
-- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr.,
Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert
Anthony Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Zona Jones, Provost
Umphrey Law Firm, LLP.
Mary Rankin, Plaintiff, represented by:
Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
Shemin Law Firm, PLLC
3333 S Pinnacle Hills Pkwy # 603
Rogers, AR 72758
Tel: 479-250-4764
and by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm & Thomas
P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm, P.A.
Defendants Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., The Coca-Cola
Company, BCI Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, and Coca
Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, California, Inc., and Coca-Cola
Company are represented by George R. Dougherty, Grippo & Elden
LLC, Michelle Cohen -- mcohen@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb
and Tyler, David Stephen Johnson -- ddjohnson@shb.com -- Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon
L.L.P., James M. Simpson, Jr. -- simpson@fridayfirm.com -- Friday
Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com --
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin A. Kasten --
mkasten@fridayfirm.com -- Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew
Funk -- mfunk@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP,
pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec -- sezgliniec@pbwt.com --
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy
Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis
J. Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Retired Players Snubbed by Alumni Association
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Kilgore, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
during the ongoing class-action lawsuit brought against the
National Hockey League by retired players, the NHL Alumni
Association has maintained impartiality while many people on the
players' side allege it has served as a powerful tool to help
suppress involvement from players.
The NHL Alumni Association is embedded in the sport on a level
unmatched with other North American professional sports and
similar groups. Retired players in the association receive tickets
to games and in-game tributes. Many rely on payments for
appearances and playing in alumni games to support themselves
post-career.
"A number of players, all of a sudden, there were no more
appearances for them" when they joined the suit, said
Allan Walsh, a prominent player agent. "They weren't invited to
come out and play games. They basically got frozen out. And
that's the greatest weapon the league could have against some of
these retired players."
NHL Alumni Association President Mark Napier denied players who
joined the lawsuit lost benefits.
"Alumni members have never been told they would lose any of their
privileges regarding any matter," Mr. Napier said in an email to
The Post.
But many on the players' side have called the association's
relationship with the league into question. In August 2014,
according to emails made public through the case, former
defenseman Brad Maxwell, the president of the Minnesota alumni
chapter, wrote a letter to retired players in his chapter.
Mr. Maxwell was one of the first players to join the suit, and a
neurologist would be in Minnesota and available to give them
tests. The testing had been set up through the attorneys on the
players' side, Mr. Maxwell said, but he intended the letter to be
informative.
"I've always tried to keep it separate," Mr. Maxwell said. "I'm
not preaching to say you need to join this case. That's not what
I'm about. What I was trying to do was, we had the opportunity to
listen to a neurologist. Come and listen to what this guy has to
say. It was a letter I sent out, basically that if you want to
come down and listen to this guy, you're welcome to do it."
Mr. Maxwell included Mr. Napier on his email. Mr. Napier
subsequently forwarded the letter to NHL deputy commissioner
Bill Daly and included a message.
"Fyi. Don't think they are getting much traction," Mr. Napier
wrote to Daly. "Will keep monitoring."
When he learned Mr. Napier had sent the letter to Daly, "I just
felt astounded," Mr. Maxwell said.
"They'll probably deny this: I know for a fact the NHL and NHLPA
both help the NHL alumni financially," Mr. Maxwell said. "That's
just them scratching their backs."
In an email to The Post, Napier wrote, "The NHL Alumni Association
is internally reviewing current publicly available information on
any email correspondence between the NHLAA and the National Hockey
League. The NHL Alumni Association considers this a private
internal matter. We remain independent from the National Hockey
League and the NHL Players Association and as such take a neutral
position regarding any possible litigation."
Still, many retired players believe the association's influence on
retired players has affected how many players want to join the
class-action suit.
"As a retiree, you're wondering -- or you shouldn't be wondering
any longer -- why you haven't got information from them," former
all-star defenseman Gary Leeman said. "I believe myself it's set
up in a way that it's tough for guys to understand what's going
on."
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Fails to Dismiss "Cain" Suit Over Court Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALANA CAIN, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
ET AL. SECTION: R(2), Civil Action No. 15-4479 (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims.
Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste,
Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed the
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking to
declare the manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court judges collect post-judgment court costs from indigent
debtors unconstitutional. According to the plaintiffs, the judges
maintain a policy of jailing criminal defendants who fail to pay
their court costs solely because of their indigence.
The "judicial defendants" now asked the Court to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The defendants argued that the Criminal District
Court judges are not legally required to inquire into a state-
court criminal defendant's reasons for nonpayment because the
criminal defendant must affirmatively raise his indigence to
excuse his failure to pay. The defendants also argued that
indigence does not excuse nonpayment when the state-court criminal
defendant agreed to pay court costs in his plea agreement with the
State. Finally, the defendants argued that the named plaintiffs
willfully failed to pay their court costs and that therefore the
judges lawfully issued arrest warrants for the plaintiffs'
nonpayment, regardless of their indigence.
Judge Vance found that the defendants' arguments fail under the
law and plaintiffs' alleged facts.
A full-text copy of Judge Vance's May 23, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/oV9XVp from Leagle.com.
Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Patrick Quigley -- quigley@loyno.edu -- Loyola Law School Clinic,
Alec George Karakatsanis, Equal Justice Under Law, pro hac vice,
Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet, Law Office of Anna Lellelid, LLC,
Emily Faye Ratner, Emily Faye Ratner, Attorney at Law, Jon M.
Greenbaum -- jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org -- Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights, pro hac vice & Mateya Beth Kelley --
mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org -- Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights, pro hac vice.
Robert J. Kazik, Laurie A White, Tracey Flemings-Davillier,
Benedict Willard, Keva Landrum-Johnson, Robin Pittman, Byron C.
Williams, Camille Buras, Karen K. Herman, Darryl Derbigny, Arthur
Hunter, Franz Zibilich, Harry E Cantrell, Defendants, represented
by Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Celeste
Brustowicz, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.,Christopher Kent
Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Elizabeth A.
Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..
Jeff Landry, Movant, represented by Emily G Andrews, Louisiana
Department of Justice & Madeline S. Carbonette, Louisiana
Department of Justice.
NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Alleges Securities Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR ABRAMSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NEWLINK GENETICS CORPORATION,
CHARLES J. LINK, JR., JOHN B. HENNEMAN III, and GORDON H. LINK,
JR., Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03545 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), was
filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired NewLink
securities between September 17, 2013 and May 9, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.
NewLink, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering,
developing, and commercializing immunotherapeutic products to
enhance treatment options for patients with cancer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Marc Gorrie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
mgorrie@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Fax: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
PERRIGO COMPANY: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roofer's Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Joseph C. Papa and Perrigo Company PLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02805-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., May 18, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
Based in Dublin, Ireland, Perrigo Company PLC is a manufacturer of
OTC healthcare products and supplier of infant formulas for the
store brand market.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael B. Himmel, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC
6 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 597-6172
E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com
PICK AND EAT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Sanchez, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Pick and Eat 2, Inc., and Jorge Alexander
Peralta, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:16-cv-03719-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Pick and Eat restaurant located at
4179 and 4932 Broadway New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
PUDA COAL: Appellants' Expert Witness Not "Expert" at All
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the district court in the appealed case SALOMON
QUERUB, HOTEL VENTURES, HOWARD PRITCHARD, HARRIET GOLDSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
THOMAS ROSENBERGER, STEVEN WEISSMANN, TRELLUS MGMT. CO. LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOORE STEPHENS HONG KONG, Defendant-
Appellee. PUDA COAL, INC., MING ZHAO, LIPING ZHU, QIONG LABY WU,
YAO ZHAO, CARRET & CO., LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., JIANFEI
NI, C. MARK TANG, LAWRENCE WIZEL, BREAN MURRAY, CARRT & CO., LLC,
MOORE STEPHENS INT'L LTD., MOORE STEPHENS, P.C., Defendants, No.
15-2100 (2d Cir.)
Puda Coal, Inc. was a publicly-traded, U.S.-listed company
headquartered in China, which purportedly held, as its sole asset,
a 90% ownership stake in Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd. (Shanxi
Coal), a coal supplier for steel manufacturing. In September 2009,
Puda's chairman transferred Puda's entire interest in Shanxi Coal
to himself, leaving Puda a shell company.
Moore Stephens Hong Kong is a Hong Kong-based audit firm that
issued clean opinions for Puda's 2009 and 2010 financial
statements pursuant to Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
standards. After April 2011, when the Shanxi Coal transfer became
public, Moore Stephens resigned as Puda's auditor and announced
that its 2009 and 2010 audit opinions could no longer be relied
upon.
Plaintiffs-appellants are investors in Puda, filed a securities
class action shortly after news broke of the Shanxi Coal transfer,
alleging that Moore Stephens and others violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5).
In support, plaintiffs-appellants proffered Anita C.M. Hou as an
expert who testified that Moore Stephens failed to comply with the
auditing standards of Hong Kong and/or the People's Republic of
China. However, she admitted that she was not an expert on PCAOB
and could not opine on whether the audits complied with PCAOB
standards. Moore Stephens proffered Alexander H. Mackintosh as an
expert in PCAOB standards who opined that Moore Stephens's 2009
and 2010 audits fully complied with PCAOB standards.
At summary judgment, the district court struck plaintiffs-
appellants' sole accounting expert, Hou, and granted summary
judgment in favor of Moore Stephens. The district court reasoned
that Hou did not have the requisite expertise to offer opinions on
any matters relevant to the case because she had no experience or
expertise in PCAOB audits and because PCAOB provides the standard
of conduct that Moore Stephens allegedly failed to satisfy. Appeal
followed.
The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
A copy of the Second Circuit's summary order dated May 20, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/vrvCyGfrom Leagle.com.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A.; Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; Pomerantz LLP; Kirby
McInerney LLP, for Appellants
Brian J. Massengill -- bmassengill@mayerbrown.com -- James C.
Schroeder -- jschroeder@mayerbrown.com -- Dana Douglas -- Justin
A. McCarty -- jmccarty@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP, for
Appellee
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit panel consists
of Judges Dennis Jacobs, Barrington D. Parker and Reena Raggi.
R&D GLOBAL: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. R&D Global Services, Inc., Diana Maruyama, and Rey Perez, Case
No. 0:16-cv-61064-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants operate a freight carrier business based in
Pembroke Pines, Florida providing carrier services in various
locations throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
Doral, FL 33166
Telephone: (561) 299-3703
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
hsolis@workingforyou.com
RAMCO PROTECTIVE: "Bridges" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Bridges, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RAMCO PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-00811-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
RAMCO Protective is a fully licensed, privately owned,
professional security resource.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Celler, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: (866) 344-9243
Fax: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Pays $1.25MM in Class Action Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Banning-Beaumont Patch, writing for Patch.com, reports that
Riverside County supervisors signed off on a $1.25 million payment
to a Berkeley-based law firm that represented former inmates in a
class-action lawsuit that was settled with the county earlier this
year.
In a 5-0 vote without comment on May 24, the Board of Supervisors
agreed to disburse the funds to cover the Prison Law Office's
court costs and attorney fees. The board also approved disbursing
$450,000 over the next three years to ensure compliance with terms
and conditions specified in the legal settlement.
All of the payments will be drawn from the county's general fund.
The federal suit, filed in May 2013 on behalf of convicted felon
Quinton E. Gray and others inmates, stemmed from alleged
deficiencies in medical care provided individuals housed in one of
the county's five detention facilities.
The Prison Law Office founded its case on a 2012 report by the
Riverside County Grand Jury, which found that the jail system had
too few medical practitioners, and the staff who were managing
inmates' medications and handling other healthcare needs were not
attentive or consistent.
The plaintiffs' attorneys attempted to ferret out instances of
medical neglect, but as the county's legal team noted in an answer
to one brief, the Prison Law Office regularly cited examples that
referred to "unidentified people at an unidentified jail at an
unidentified time."
Mr. Gray, a repeat offender whose most recent conviction was in
February for misdemeanor theft, claimed that the county had failed
to meet "some medical conditions that required care."
Another plaintiff in the suit, Angela Nicole Patterson, claimed
she did not receive anticoagulant and other medications after she
was transported from Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm
Springs to the jail ward at Riverside County Regional Medical
Center in Moreno Valley.
Ms. Patterson killed two of her passengers and seriously injured
another after crashing into a tree on the southern end of Joshua
Tree National Park in June 2009. The then-22-year-old defendant
was intoxicated -- and heading to a court hearing in San
Bernardino County to answer a misdemeanor DUI charge in that
jurisdiction.
She suffered moderate injuries in the Joshua Tree wreck. In 2013,
she was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The Prison Law Office alleged that all of the plaintiffs were
subjected to Eighth Amendment "cruel and unusual punishment"
violations under the U.S. Constitution while jailed in Riverside
County.
County officials characterized the suit as opportunistic. Efforts
were made last fall to have the class-action status de-certified
based on "lack of information and belief." However, U.S. District
Judge Virginia Phillips denied the request, and the county settled
the case soon afterward.
As part of the consent decree, the county will have to institute a
range of detention health reforms that will cost an estimated $40
million a year, potentially aggravating its structural budget
deficit and making it necessary to divert funds from other
programs.
RUBY TUESDAY: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Spicer, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that two former Ruby Tuesday employees who claim the restaurant
chain denied them overtime pay when they worked many 50-hour or
more weeks are seeking class action status in their litigation
against their former employer.
Oscar Sagastume of Meriden and Kevin Gibson of New York filed the
lawsuit in U.S. District Court on May 19 to "recover unpaid
overtime compensation for themselves and similarly situated
employees as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act."
"Defendant was aware that plaintiffs and the class members worked
more than 40 hours per workweek, yet defendant failed to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek," the lawsuit alleges. "Defendant did not keep accurate
records of hours worked by the plaintiffs or the class members."
Mr. Sagastume worked for the national restaurant chain from
February 2011 to April 2015. He worked at several locations
across Connecticut as an assistant manager and frequently worked
more than 40 hours a week, according to the lawsuit. During the
week of Feb. 8, 2015, he worked "approximately 60 hours" but was
only paid for 40. He claims that on average he worked between 57
and 62 hours per week.
"Ruby Tuesday required plaintiffs and [assistant managers] to work
long overtime hours without paying them any overtime
compensation," the lawsuit claims. "Ruby Tuesday classified all
of its (assistant managers) as 'executives' and treated them as
exempt from the overtime requirements of federal and state laws."
Assistant managers earned roughly $37,500 per year. However,
Sagastume and Gibson argue that their job duties required them to
do the same as the hourly employees, who were given overtime pay,
such as greeting and waiting on customers, serving food, cooking
and preparing food, clearing and setting tables and cleaning the
restaurant.
The suit claims Ruby Tuesday willfully misclassified Sagastume,
Gibson and other assistant managers as employees who are exempt
from FLSA protection and even failed to properly record the hours
worked by their employees.
"Defendant's unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and
consistent," the lawsuit alleges.
The class would include any assistant manager who worked in
Connecticut from May 19, 2014, to the date of final judgment, if
one is rendered, for the Connecticut class action allegations.
The suit makes two claims: that the FLSA was violated and, for
Sagastume and other Connecticut plaintiffs, that the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act was violated. The lawsuit does not say how much
money the two assistant managers are owed for overtime hours. The
class action would also include other managers, such as those
running the kitchen and guest services.
The two plaintiffs are represented by Joshua Goodbaum, of
Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti in New Haven. Law
firms from New York, Florida and Washington, D.C., are expected to
file pro hac vice motions. Mr. Goodbaum could not be reached for
comment.
"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, we will vigorously
defend the company and its actions on this matter in the
appropriate forum," Ruby Tuesday said in a statement.
In February 2015, Ruby Tuesday settled a $3 million class action
lawsuit for failing to pay overtime wages. The suit, filed in
2013 in the New York federal courts by a bartender and a server,
claimed the company required hourly employees to finish certain
tasks before the end of their shifts. It alleged many were forced
to work off the clock in order to complete their duties. According
to the suit, Ruby Tuesday's scheduling system and staffing
guidelines forbid overtime pay. The suit claimed Ruby Tuesday
violated the FLSA.
More recently, the chain was sued by a Tennessee employee in
April. That employee, Charlene Craig, claimed more than 20
percent of her duties at work were for "non-tippable" tasks, such
as cutting lemons, refilling ice bins and cleaning the floor. For
restaurant employees, up to 20 percent of their work can be
nontippable work since the rest of their time will be spent
earning tips to compensate for their low restaurant wage.
Ms. Craig is seeking other employees to bring about a class action
suit against Ruby Tuesday.
S.S. SKIKOS: Court Grants Final Approval to "Meza" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MEZA, Plaintiff, v. S.S. SKIKOS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01889-TEH (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
THELTON E. HENDERSON granted final approval to the settlement
reached by the parties.
"Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court
reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action,
the Named Plaintiff, the California Class and California FLSA
Class, and the Defendants for the purposes of supervising the
implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of
the Settlement, the distribution of the Settlement Funds, the
award of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, the Order Granting
Final Approval of Settlement, and this Judgment," the Court said.
A copy of the Court's May 25, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LsqfXa from Leagle.com.
Jose Meza, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Karen C. Carrera,
Villegas Carrera, LLP, Nicole Nellessen Coon, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Virginia Villegas, Villegas
Carrera, LLP.
S.S. Skikos, Inc., et al. Defendant, represented by Robert Allen
Jones -- robert.jones@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Carolyn Blecha
Hall -- carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Wells
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for Union Leader, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics and its general manager at the Merrimack facility on
behalf of residents with contaminated wells near the Merrimack
plant.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the trespass, nuisance,
loss of enjoyment and property damages in connection with water
contamination allegedly caused by the Saint-Gobain site at 701
Daniel Webster Highway.
Kevin Brown, a resident at 498 Charles Bancroft Highway in
Litchfield, is the plaintiff in two separate class action suits
-- one focusing on medical monitoring as a result of the exposure
to the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid, and the other seeking a
class action complaint and request for jury trial.
The law firms of Gottesman and Hollis of Nashua, along with Hannon
Law Firm of Denver, Colo., filed the legal paperwork on May 24 at
Hillsborough County Superior Court in Nashua.
Paul DeCarolis -- pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com -- an attorney at
Gottesman and Hollis, declined to comment on the lawsuit on May
25.
"Plaintiff individually, and as a representative of the class
members, seeks compensatory and exemplary damages arising out of
chemical releases, discharges and leaks, both past and present,
from the (Merrimack) Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation
. . . These damages include the loss in value of plaintiff's and
other class members' property, and the cost of remediating the
properties owned by plaintiff and other members of the class from
the toxic chemicals released from the Saint-Gobain site," states
the lawsuit. "Plaintiff and class members' damages also include
deferred marketability of their properties, loss of use of the
property, loss of use and enjoyment of the property, inconvenience
and annoyance and discomfort."
According to a press release provided by Mr. DeCarolis, the class
action lawsuit is "on behalf of residents within a two-mile radius
of the Saint-Gobain facility in Merrimack who have had their wells
contaminated by PFOAs."
Gwenael Busnel is the general manager at the site, and is listed
as a defendant in the lawsuit.
" . . . Busnel had a duty to operate the plant in a safe and
reasonable manner, in conformance with the laws, and had a duty
not to allow chemicals used in the plant to contaminate the
plaintiff's and class members' property," states the suit.
There are more than 70 contaminated wells within the vicinity of
the Saint-Gobain facility in Merrimack, with most of those
properties housed in Litchfield. More than 200 properties are
receiving bottled water as a result of the recently detected PFOA
contamination.
According to the allegations listed in the civil lawsuit, Saint-
Gobain and its predecessors have used PFOA in various
manufacturing processes at the Merrimack plant, which was
subsequently released into the environment and spread to water
used for drinking.
"Defendants have sometimes negligently, sometimes suddenly and
accidentally, and otherwise acted to cause toxic contaminants to
be released from their facility and property, which travelled to
contaminate the properties of class members," states court
documents. " . . . Defendants' conduct in releasing chemicals was
willful, wanton and malicious, and it was done without regard to
the rights and safety of others . . ."
The lawsuit also seeks as damages the economic cost of medical
monitoring necessitated by exposure to the PFOA chemicals, noting
that PFOA has been associated with certain cancers and other
illnesses. Medical monitoring is necessary for the early
detection of diseases related to the chemicals allegedly released
from the Saint-Gobain site, states the lawsuit.
Saint-Gobain did not immediately provide a statement regarding the
new lawsuit.
Two previous class-action lawsuits have been filed against the
company for water contamination problems.
Earlier in May, residents of Bennington County in Vermont filed a
class-action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain alleging that the
company knew or should have known that the use of PFOA in its
manufacturing process was potentially hazardous to the environment
and human health.
Earlier this year, Erin Brockovich and Weitz & Luxenberg filed a
similar class-action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell
International Inc. on behalf of residents in Hoosick Falls, N.Y.,
after discovering they were drinking water containing high levels
of PFOA, a man-made chemical once used to make Teflon.
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Tosses Suit Over Valeant Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reports that Delaware's
Chancery Court on May 19 tossed a shareholder challenge to Salix
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s $13.1 billion sale to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals Inc., finding the two-count suit failed to support
viable claims against either company.
Ruling from the bench after a more than two-hour argument on
dismissal motions, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard declined to keep
alive any allegations of fiduciary breaches by Salix directors or
actions by Valeant or its merger subsidiary that aided breaches.
Valeant had won a bidding war for Salix in April, months after an
earlier purchase offer by Allergan Inc. fell through amid
questions about Salix's inventory and revenue reports. Top
officer departures and restatements of Salix financials for 2013
and most of 2014 followed, with its share price plunging by 35
percent in a single day in November 2014.
Weeks later, Valeant emerged with a $150-per-share offer, soon
raised to $173, with shareholders immediately challenging the
deal, disputing company financial disclosures, and arguing that
the sale was motivated by a director desire to avoid personal
liability for the scandal. The suit also contested the sale price
and transaction terms and the adequacy of consideration for
alternatives and director.
"It would be unreasonable to infer from the plaintiff's
allegations, even viewed in the light most favorable to them, that
the Salix defendants undertook the sale of the company in order to
avoid the mere threat of liability," Chancellor Bouchard said.
The lawsuit also failed to support claims that Salix and Valeant
agreed on deal terms to protect the merger, including a $506
million termination fee and a step-down in price if Salix failed
to complete the merger by April 1, 2015, Chancellor Bouchard said
on May 19.
He added that the shareholder suit appeared to have failed to
actively pursue some disclosure demands and allegations, and noted
that attorneys for the shareholders initiated but did not pursue a
preliminary injunction and motion to expedite court review.
"If plaintiff truly believed these claims were meritorious I would
have expected them to have been pressed before the transaction
closed," Chancellor Bouchard said.
Salix's attorney A. Thompson Bayliss -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com
-- of Abrams & Bayliss LLP said at the hearing the Valeant offer
received overwhelmingly favorable support through a tendering of
shares, rather than a vote, and said that the shareholder claims
"harped" on the company's troubles and impediments despite what
became a successful sale.
"The better inference is it's actually impressive how much of a
bidding frenzy these directors were able to encourage under the
circumstances," Mr. Bayliss told Chancellor Bouchard, referring to
competing offers for the company.
The shareholders' attorney W. Scott Holleman --
scotth@johnsonandweaver.com -- of Johnson & Weaver LLP said that
for all reasonable inferences, the court should come down on the
side of keeping the case alive for further proceedings.
"We think it's certainly reasonably conceivable that the board
breached its fiduciary duty," Mr. Holleman said.
Attorneys for the shareholders later said they set aside efforts
to expedite the case or secure a preliminary injunction, after
talks with the companies about concerns that a delay in the case
could jeopardize Valeant's price.
During merger negotiations, Valeant had accelerated its
timetables, moving a deadline for deal completion from Aug. 2,
2015, to May 1, 2015 with the offer falling from $173 to $158 per
share if settlement came after April 1.
The shareholder action pointed to the price trigger as further
indications of problems with the transaction.
"In my view, the plaintiffs confuse structural, coercive tender
offers with tender offers that expire or lose value if they're not
accepted in a certain time period," Chancellor Bouchard said on
May 19.
The shareholders are represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D.
Long, Gina M. Serra and Jeremy J. Riley of Rigrodsky & Long PA,
Stuart J. Guber, Timothy J. Peter and Nina M. Valendani of Faruqi
& Faruqi LLP, W. Scott Holleman of Johnson & Weaver LLP, Katherine
M. Ryan and Richard A. Maniskas of Ryan & Maniskas LLP, Donald J.
Enright of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, James M. Ficaro of The Weiser Law
Firm PC, and Rosalee B.C. Thomas --
rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- of Finkelstein Thompson LLP.
Salix is represented by A. Thompson Bayliss and David A. Seal of
Abrams & Bayliss LLP and Martin Seidel -- martin.seidel@cwt.com
-- Nathan M. Bull -- nathan.bull@cwt.com -- and Jared J. Stanisci
of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP. Valeant is represented by
Robert S. Saunders -- rob.saunders@skadden.com -- Ronald N. Brown
-- ron.brown@skadden.com -- and Arthur R. Bookout of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and Brian T. Frawley --
frawleyb@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
The case is Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Stockholder Litigation,
case number 10721, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.
SHAGORIKA RESTAURANT: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Solaiman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Shagorika Restaurant, Inc., Mohammad Faruk, and Marium
Begum, Case No. 1:16-cv-00576-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., May 18, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at One Central
Avenue, Albany, New York 12210.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fausto E. Zapata Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 206
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 766-9870
Facsimile: (212) 766-9869
E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Videotaped Women Giving Birth, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
mother claims in a class action that Sharp Healthcare in San Diego
took 15,000 videos of women giving birth and let security guards
watch them, in an attempt to catch a single drug-stealing
employee.
Filing suit May 24, in superior court, Melissa Escalera claims
Sharp Healthcare violated thousands of women's privacy in all
three of its operating rooms at Sharp Grossmont Hospital. Her case
is the Top Download today at Courthouse News.
"Defendants recorded approximately 15,000 videos of patients in
their operating rooms -- all in an alleged effort to catch an
employee in the act of taking a drug from the operating room cart
and putting it in his pocket," the complaint states. "Defendants
retain at least 6,966 videos, after allegedly destroying some of
them. In their overzealous pursuit of evidence against this
employee, defendants breached the privacy rights of thousands of
patients when they were at their most vulnerable."
She says the hospital set up hidden cameras in the Grossmont
operating rooms that were triggered by motion sensors, and so
recorded whenever someone was in the room. They recorded her
giving birth by Caesarean section.
The cameras were installed in July 2012 to try to catch an
employee stealing propofol from drug carts in operating rooms,
Escalera says. Propofol is the drug that killed Michael Jackson.
Escalera says the cameras recorded 15,000 videos of at least 1,000
patients between July 2012 and June 2013.
"These video clips show defendants' female patients unconscious,
undressed on operating room tables and undergoing medical
procedures," according to the complaint. "Because of the nature of
these procedures, the videos captured women while they were
emotionally and physically exposed, often naked with their most
sensitive genital areas visible."
Inewsource.org reported on May 5 that Dr. Adam Dorin, an
anesthesiologist, was caught stowing the drug in his shirt pocket.
The report says Dorin's attorney, Duane Admire, told inewsource:
"Essentially, every patient who had surgery or had their baby
delivered by C-section or had a tubal ligation during that time,
from July 2012 to June of 2013, would have had their images taken
at some point," without their knowledge or consent.
In a second report, on May 19, inewsource reported that the
hospital "mistakenly" released some videos to attorney Admire. The
hospital told inewsource in that story that it "apologized for
releasing 14 video clips" of women in surgery, and said it was
trying to identify all the women who were recorded, to inform them
of the breach of privacy.
That article also reported that another Grossmont anesthesiologist
told a hospital that Dorin's taking the drugs "probably wasn't
theft. 'Anesthesia carts are unlocked and physicians often take 1-
3 vials for emergencies; these are life and death situations,'
according to minutes from that meeting," according to the May 19
article.
Escalera seeks class certification and damages for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidentiality, unlawful recording of
confidential information, negligent creation and maintenance of
medical information, unlawful disclosure of medical information,
invasion of privacy and distribution of private sexually explicit
materials.
She is represented by Allison Goddard with the Patterson Law
Group, who said in an interview: "By putting a hidden camera in
the operating room they're inviting in individuals she did not
consent to be there. If they had invited a security guard in his
uniform and attorney in a suit to stand in the room when she was
undergoing surgery she obviously wouldn't consent to that."
Goddard said another client was particularly upset that her C-
section may have been viewed by strangers because the hospital
allowed only one other person in the room when she gave birth, so
her mother was not able to see her grandchild born.
Sharp's Patient Rights policy states that patients have the right
to "full consideration of privacy concerning their medical care
program," and the "right to be advised as to the reason for the
presence of any individual," Goddard said.
Goddard said none of her clients have been contacted yet by Sharp.
The attorney called it "amazing [that] this was allowed to occur."
Sharp Grossmont Hospital's communications director Bruce Hartman
said Sharp does not comment on pending litigation.
SLM CORPORATION: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda K. Gordon, an individual person, a natural citizen on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Raymond J. Quinlan, SLM
Corporation, Nicholas C. Wilson, CollectCorp, Inc., and Federal
Student Aid, Case No. 3:16-cv-00867-PK (D. Oregon, May 18, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations.
SLM Corporation operates a consumer banking company headquartered
in Newark, Delaware.
Brenda K. Gordon is a pro se plaintiff.
SNAPCHAT INC: Illegally Uses Users' Biometrics, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Siegal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Snapchat, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-0344 (C.D. Cal. May
18, 2016), is an action for damages and other legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Snapchat in
collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated Illinois users' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent.
Snapchat, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops a text and
photo based messaging application for mobile phones.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Pinkney"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pinkney v. Southwest Credit Systems LP, Case No.
2:16-cv-00532 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge David E Jones on May
23, 2016, ruled that, because the Plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint, his motion for class certification, motion to stay
briefing on the motion for class certification, and motion for
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
are all denied as moot.
The case alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Judge
Pamela Pepper presides over the case.
The Plaintiff filed a motion for certification on May 6 and on May
19, 2016. The Plaintiff further asked that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff says.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dkoPJY3m
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: NHTSA Records 90 Outback Consumer Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
federal agency responsible for taking consumer complaints about
vehicle defects has recorded roughly 90 complaints about 2010 and
2011 Subaru Outbacks whose exterior lights allegedly fail
frequently and prematurely.
In a November complaint, a driver claims his or her 2011 Outback
needed headlamp bulbs changed every six weeks. In a more recent
complaint, a driver replaced headlight bulbs four times in two
years. Additional complaints note the difficulty of replacing the
bulbs.
"This is getting (frustrating) and I do not hear or see . . . a
recall for the problem," a driver said in another complaint from
December. "I see a lot of complaints, but again, no recalls to
fix the problem. Subaru keeps taking my money to fix the problem.
Will not be buying anymore Subarus."
That complaint and others were found on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's website, safecar.gov.
A class action lawsuit was filed in April by a California customer
over the alleged design or manufacturing defect that drivers claim
has required them to replace exterior lightbulbs too often.
Plaintiff Kathleen O'Neill claims the defect stems from
"interference within the lighting assembly and overvoltage in the
lighting circuits." She accuses Subaru of breaching its implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violating the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and its
Unfair Competition Law.
Ms. O'Neill also claims that Subaru knew about the defect in 2009,
but the manufacturer never offered a permanent solution to the
problem.
The defect affects more than the headlights, according to
complaints. The problem occurs with other exterior lighting
components, as well, including low-beam headlamps, side marker
lights, turn signal lights, tail and brake light assemblies,
license plate lights and parking lamps, according to the suit.
The lawsuit claims the defect makes driving the vehicle unsafe for
the driver and other drivers on the road, and consumers end up
having to pay more to replace the exterior bulbs.
The NHTSA reviews each complaint of vehicle safety problems. It
may issue a recall if it determines that a defect in a group of
vehicles of the same model or manufacturer puts drivers at risk. A
manufacturer can also issue a recall independent of the NHTSA.
The degree of risk to safety that triggers an NHTSA recall is
often "uncertain or quite remote," Peter Masaitis --
peter.masaitis@alston.com -- a partner in Alston & Bird's Los
Angeles office who focuses his practice partially on product
liability claims, told Legal Newsline.
Mr. Masaitis isn't involved in the suit against Subaru, though he
said it offers an example of a potential defect that poses an
unlikely risk of harm to the driver.
"The failure of exterior lighting could potentially play a factor
in a nighttime accident, but the chances are fairly remote," he
said. "And, though the claim is that the lighting in these cars
fails prematurely, every automobile poses the same potential
safety risk by virtue of the fact that all bulbs eventually fail.
"It appears that the Subaru lawsuit is less about genuine safety
concerns, and more about the inconvenience and consumption of time
experienced by owners like the named plaintiff, who made repeated
trips to the dealership."
A recall isn't the only option available to address an issue. Auto
manufacturers can send a technical service bulletin (TSB) to
dealerships, Mr. Masaitis said.
"A less serious problem with a car -- one that does not warrant a
recall -- can be confirmed by the dealership pursuant to a TSB
while the car is in for service, and addressed usually at no
charge to the customer," he said.
"In the event of 'one-off' complaints raised by customers,
manufacturers and their dealers differ on how they address the
issue, but will generally investigate the complaint through their
dealerships' service techs with an eye toward both fixing that
customer's issue and identifying whether a broader problem exists
in that model car."
It doesn't appear that Subaru issued such a bulletin for this
alleged defect.
The timing of the lawsuit coincides with a major Subaru recall for
a steering system defect. Owners of 2016 and 2017 Subaru Legacy
and Outback vehicles were warned that the steering wheel could
have no effect on the wheels' direction. Subaru told owners to
stop driving their cars right away. The company recalled
approximately 48,500 sedans and crossovers, according to reports.
SUBARU OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Crosstrek Engine Lights Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Van Osdol, writing for Pittsburgh's Action News, reports that
Action News Investigates has found one case in which consumers
joining a class action case could actually hurt themselves.
Matthew Mitchell started having problems with his Subaru Crosstrek
just months after he bought it.
The oil and check engine lights were coming on constantly.
Mechanics told him his new car was using more oil than it should.
"The problem was supposed to be fixed several times and just
persisted," Mr. Mitchell said.
Mr. Mitchell says in two years, he made more than 30 trips to the
dealer.
"I like the car. I just don't like the headache," he said.
He has plenty of company. The 2013 Crosstrek is one of several
Subaru models that have had chronic oil consumption problems,
according to a class action lawsuit filed against Subaru.
The case affects 665,730 Subaru owners who own Crosstrek,
Forester, Legacy, Outback and Impreza models from 2011 to 2015.
A pending settlement would give owners of those vehicles an
extended warranty for any oil-related problem.
But Mr. Mitchell took himself out of the class action case.
Instead, he filed a lemon law complaint. His attorney was
Robert Silverman, who's no fan of the class action case.
"These consumers are really getting a bad deal," Mr. Silverman
said.
He said the class action case will not compensate consumers for
the loss of value in their car that comes from frequent repairs.
That includes Mr. Mitchell, who had to have his engine rebuilt
twice.
"All they're getting is the repair covered. What happens when
they want to sell their car and they get thousands of dollars
less?" Silverman said.
Even though the class action settlement has not been finalized,
Subaru is already offering its customers with oil problems the
same extended warranty that is covered by the settlement.
"We believe that this proposed resolution affirms Subaru of
America's reputation for standing behind its products and taking
care of its customers," said company spokesman Michael McHale.
Mr. Mitchell settled his lemon law case with Subaru. He and his
attorney declined to give details of the settlement, but
Mr. Mitchell said he got a better deal than he would have under
the class action case.
One of the Subaru class action plaintiff attorneys,
Matthew Schelkopf, said the settlement should satisfy most Subaru
customers but he can understand why some lemon law attorneys are
upset.
"In this case, I filed one case and provided relief to potentially
665,000 individuals. So that's a lot of business for lemon law
attorneys that could have been swept up in that case," Mr.
Schelkopf said.
Mr. Silverman responded, "There's lots of class actions being
filed all the time. Some are really good. Some get great results.
But this one is really bad. This one bothers me more than any
over 26 years."
Regardless of how car owners make out in the class action case,
there is no question it will be lucrative for the plaintiff
lawyers. They stand to collect $1.5 million in fees if the
settlement is approved.
Mr. Schelkopf acknowledged the class action settlement may not
work for some people who think they deserve more than an extended
warranty.
"And those are the individuals that, if they want to opt out they
can certainly opt out, and it might make sense for them to do so,"
he said.
One of them is Scott Bates, of Jeannette, who settled a lemon law
case with Subaru.
Before his Impreza had 7,000 miles on it, he had to have his
engine rebuilt twice.
When he saw the oil light weeks after the engine was rebuilt the
first time, Mr. Bates said, "I wasn't pleased to say the least. It
wasn't a reliable car."
Subaru owners who are part of this class action case have until
June 13 to decide if they want to opt out. If they do nothing
they will automatically be part of the settlement. That will
prevent them from filing a lemon law complaint. The settlement is
expected to be finalized in July.
Statement from Subaru spokesman Michael McHale:
"Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) and counsel for plaintiffs have
agreed to resolve a claim that alleges certain Forester, Legacy,
Outback, Impreza and Crosstrek vehicles may experience oil
consumption beyond expectation. Although fewer than 1% of Subaru
owners raised this concern, the company has extended the
powertrain warranty from 5 years, 60,000 miles to 8 years, 100,000
miles, whichever comes first. Additionally, the company agreed to
reimburse owners for certain expenses such as repairs and rental.
"Additionally, if a Subaru owner believes that their vehicle is
exhibiting this condition, we recommend that the vehicle is
presented to an authorized Subaru retailer for an oil consumption
test and if necessary, a repair will be performed at no cost. We
believe that this proposed resolution affirms SOA's reputation for
standing behind its products and taking care of its customers."
UN COAST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ubah" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Ubah and Larry Taylor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sun Coast Resources, Inc., Case No.
7:16-cv-00122 (W.D. Tex., May 18, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sun Coast Resources, Inc., one of the fastest-growing fuel and
lubricant marketers in the U.S., is licensed in 39 states, and
operates out of 17 offices and bulk plant facilities in Texas,
Oklahoma and Louisiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
SUNRUN INC: "Baker" Case Removed to Northern District of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned JOE BAKER, CARL HAYNER, and KEN MORRIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SUNRUN INC., LYNN JURICH, BOB KOMIN, EDWARD
FENSTER, JAMESON MCJUNKIN, GERALD RISK, STEVE VASSALLO, RICHARD
WONG, BEAU PEELLE, EREN OMER ATESMEN, REGINALD NORRIS, WILLIAM
ELMORE, FOUNDATION CAPITAL VI, L.P., FOUNDATION CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT CO. VI, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-02568 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2016),
has been removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Sunrun Inc. is a United States-based provider of residential solar
electricity and operates the "second largest fleet of residential
solar energy systems" in the United States.
The Defendants are represented by:
Anna Erickson White,
Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq.
Su-Han Wang, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: 415.268.7000
Fax: 415.268.7522
E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com
RWebb@mofo.com
SWang@mofo.com
TEXAS EQUIPMENT: "Stipp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Stipp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Texas Equipment Rental, LLC a/k/a TER Oilfield
Services n/k/a Johnson Specialty Tools, LLC, Craig M. Johnson and
Nathan Albert, Case No. 2:16-cv-00168 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants were engaged in oilfield services that were
directly essential to the production of goods and related oil and
gas exploration and production companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com
lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com
TRANSCARE CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Pena"
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Shameeka Ien's
motion to dismiss the class action adversary proceeding no. 16-
1048 and appointed Outten & Golden as interim class counsel.
Ien, the plaintiff in class action adversary proceeding no. 16-
1033 brought under the federal and New York Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Acts, 29 U.S.C. sections 2101 et seq., and
New York Labor Law section 860 et seq., moved to dismiss the Pena
Proceeding, or alternatively, consolidate the Pena Proceeding with
her earlier action. Ien also moved to appoint her counsel, Outten
& Golden LLP, as interim class counsel under Rule 23(g)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to this
adversary proceeding by Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure.
A full-text copy of Judge Bernstein's May 23, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/AQMz3w from Leagle.com.
The bankruptcy case is In re: TRANSCARE CORP., et al., Chapter 7,
Debtors, Case No. 16-10407 (SMB), (Jointly Administered) (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.).
The adversary proceedings are SHAMEEKA IEN on behalf of herself
and all Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSCARE CORP.,
TRANSCARE NEW YORK, INC., TRANSCARE ML, INC., TC AMBULANCE GROUP,
INC., TRANSCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., TCBA AMBULANCE, INC.,
TC BILLING AND SERVICES CORP., TRANSCARE MARYLAND, INC., TC
AMBULANCE NORTH, INC., TRANSCARE HARFORD COUNTY, INC., LYNN
TILTON, ARK CLO 2001-1 LIMITED, ARK INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, L.P.,
PATRIARCH PARTNERS, LLC, and PATRIARCH PARTNERS III, LLC,
Defendants. JOSEPH PENA, MICHELLE ESCOBAR, and MERCEDES TAVAREZ,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly, Plaintiffs, v.
TRANSCARE CORP., TRANSCARE NEW YORK, INC., TRANSCARE ML, INC., TC
AMBULANCE GROUP, INC., TRANSCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., TCBA
AMBULANCE, INC., TC BILLING AND SERVICES CORP., TRANSCARE MARYLAND
INC., TC AMBULANCE NORTH, INC., TRANSCARE HARFORD COUNTY, INC.,
PATRIARCH PARTNERS, LLC, PATRIARCH PARTNERS III, LLC, ARK CLO
2001-1 LIMITED, ARK INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, L.P., and ARK
INVESTMENT GP II, LLC, Defendants, Adv. Proc. Nos. 16-1033, 16-
1048 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
Shameeka Ien, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212)245-1000
Email: jar@outtengolden.com
rsr@outtengolden.com
Lynn Tilton is represented by:
Irena M. Goldstein, Esq.
Kathleen M. McKenna, Esq.
PROSKAUER, ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
(Eight Avenue & 41st Street)
New York, NY 10036-8299
Tel: (212)969-3000
Fax: (212)969-2900
Email: igoldstein@proskauer.com
kmckenna@proskauer.com
Salvatore LaMonica, as Chapter 7 Trustee, is represented by:
Holly R. Holecek, Esq.
LAMONICA HERBST & MANISCALCO, LLP
3305 Jerusalem Avenue
Wantagh, NY 11793
Tel: (516)826-6500
Fax: (516)826-0222
U.S. QUALITY: Conditional Class Cert. in "Harter" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York on May 20, 2016, denied a Motion for
Conditional Certification of a class in the case, Gregory Harter,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. U.S. Quality Furniture Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00311-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 15,
2016).
The Court has reviewed letter motion for a Court conference. The
Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification, which was apparently filed approximately one month
prior to the Summons and Complaint being served.
The Court noted that Plaintiff has failed to file an
affidavit/certificate of service of the Motion for Conditional
Certification, nor has Plaintiff filed an affidavit/certificate of
service regarding service of the Summons and Complaint. Therefore,
the Motion for Conditional Certification is denied without
prejudice. The letter motion for a Court conference is also denied
without prejudice.
The Plaintiff was directed to file an affidavit of service
regarding service of the Summons and Complaint by May 27 -- which
the Plaintiff did. The Court will set the Defendant's time to
respond to the Complaint once the affidavit of service is filed.
Parties are directed to confer in food faith regarding a request,
if any, to extend the time to respond to the Complaint, and a
letter request should then be filed with the Court (whether or not
the parties agree) if an extension is sought.
According to the complaint, the Defendant utilizes a piece-rate
pay policy that does not include any premiums for overtime hours
worked.
On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order setting the Initial
Conference for June 14, 2016, at 10:00 AM by telephone before
Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks. That Court order said a
Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures
are to be exchanged by the parties on or before June 7.
U.S. Quality is a third-party service provider that contracts
directly with furniture retailers and/or their warranty companies
to warehouse, distribute and repair furniture.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407)420 1414
E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
U.S. SECURITY: Faces "Bailey-Thomas" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERROLL O. BAILEY-THOMAS on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.,
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES AVIATION SERVICES, INC., BILL BUBENJECK,
MARIA RIVERA AND BILL FLORES, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03560
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant USSA is a private security guard company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leopold Raic, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROU PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 825-1400
Fax: (212) 825-1440
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bruster" Sent to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LADON BRUSTER, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-2653 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge James S. Gwin granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case and compel arbitration under the terms of the
parties' June 2014 Technology Services Agreement.
Judge Gwin ordered that the parties submit issues of arbitrability
to the arbitrator under the terms of the June 2014 agreement. The
judge further ordered that if the arbitrator finds the plaintiff's
claims to be arbitrable, then the parties must submit their claims
to arbitration under the terms of the June 2014 agreement.
A full-text copy of Judge Gwin's May 23, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/tEh1Nt from Leagle.com.
The Ohio wage and labor law claims lawsuit was brought by Ladon
Bruster on December 21, 2015 against Uber Technologies Inc. and
its subsidiary, Rasier, LLC.
Ladon Bruster, Plaintiff, represented by Jeanne Lahiff, Imbesi
Law, Marie Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik, Scott D. Simpkins --
sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli & John R. Climaco -- jrclim@climacolaw.com -- Climaco,
Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli.
Uber Technologies Inc., Raiser, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Andrew M. Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
& Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration of Surge-Pricing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. is trying to force an antitrust suit over the
company's surge-pricing algorithm into arbitration, arguing the
class-action case is attempting to dodge a ban on customers taking
disputes to court.
Uber wasn't named as a defendant in the suit against Chief
Executive Officer Travis Kalanick to avoid a user-agreement clause
that requires arbitration, the company said in a filing on may
24in federal court in Manhattan. The technology in Uber's popular
ride-hailing app is used by drivers to illegally coordinate high
surge-pricing fares, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiff, Connecticut customer Spencer Meyer, is
"contractually forbidden from utilizing the courts to resolve such
disputes with Uber," the company said in the filing.
Mr. Meyer named only Mr. Kalanick in the suit "in a strategic
effort to avoid the dispute mechanism the parties agreed upon."
Arbitration clauses have been under attack by lawyers and
politicians who argue they infringe citizens' rights. Last year,
a judge ruled in a separate case that Uber drivers can't be forced
to take their legal complaints against the company to arbitration.
The judge in that case called such requirements "unconscionable."
User agreements used by financial institutions are also being
questioned after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said
people should be allowed to pursue class-action suits regardless
of what their agreements with banks say.
Surge Pricing
Uber's pricing algorithm ensures standard fares under normal
conditions. But in certain situations, such as heavy traffic, bad
weather or on holidays, the fares rise -- sometimes to many times
the normal rate -- in a practice known as surge pricing. The
company pledged to limit the increases in emergencies under an
agreement with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in
2014.
In March, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan denied
Mr. Kalanick's bid to dismiss the suit. Judge Rakoff rejected the
CEO's argument that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands
of drivers was "wildly implausible" and "physically impossible."
That ruling allowed Mr. Meyer to move forward with his claim that
Uber's pricing algorithm violates antitrust laws that are intended
to protect consumers from price manipulation. The suit, filed in
December, hasn't yet received Judge Rakoff's approval for class-
action status.
Mr. Meyer is seeking damages on behalf of millions of U.S. riders
who rely on the world's largest ride-hailing company and opens a
new line of legal attacks on sharing-economy businesses. Uber
faces other lawsuits and regulatory challenges over its business
model, including demands by its drivers to be classified as
employees instead of contractors.
'Price Fixer'
Andrew Schmidt, Mr. Meyer's lawyer, didn't immediately respond to
voice-mail and e-mail messages seeking comment on the ruling.
Meyer alleges that Mr. Kalanick designed the company "to be a
price fixer" because its drivers "do not compete" but rather
charge fares set by the algorithm. Uber takes a cut of the fares.
The business plan amounts to an antitrust scheme because the
drivers, despite charging the same prices, are supposedly
independent service providers, according to Mr. Meyer.
Uber has said that the conspiracy that Mr. Meyer alleges would be
impossible to execute and that if the company lost at trial,
thousands of drivers would be forced to pay damages.
The ride-hailing service, started in 2010, has grown rapidly and
now has a presence in 65 countries. Uber and its competitors are
able to keep down their costs by using contractors rather than
employees. Typically, contractors pay their own expenses and
aren't protected by minimum wage and overtime laws. Companies
don't pay for their unemployment insurance, workers compensation
or Social Security.
The case is Meyer v. Kalanick, 1:15-cv-09796, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
UNITED COLLECTION: Stefanovic Dismisses Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Ramona Stefanovic filed on May 27, 2016, a notice of voluntary
dismissal of her lawsuit, RAMONA STEFANOVIC, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00422-DEJ (E.D. Wis.).
Magistrate Judge David E Jones on May 23, 2016, ruled that,
because she has filed an amended complaint, the plaintiff's motion
for class certification, motion to stay, and motion for relief
from the Local Rules, are all denied as moot.
Stefanovic sought to certify the classes described in her amended
complaint and further asked the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff argues.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=exLHlGkO
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
United Collection Bureau Inc. is represented by:
Ethan G Ostroff, Esq.
Troutman Sanders LLP
222 Central Park Ave #2000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Tel: 757-687-7541
Fax: 757.687.1541
E-mail: ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com
UNITED STATES: Health Insurance Lobby Mulls Obamacare Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
James Freeman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
ObamaCare is "bringing out corporate America's worst crony-
capitalist impulses," writes Sen. Marco Rubio. "The health-
insurance lobby has teamed up with trial lawyers to sue the
federal government -- through individual lawsuits and a $5 billion
class action -- for not following through on a sweetheart bailout
deal buried in the law. This provision of ObamaCare would have
required taxpayers to bail out insurers for losing money on the
health-care exchanges."
UTZ QUALITY: Sued Over Dirty Potato Chips "All Natural" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Reed, writing for The Evening Sun, reports that a
California man has filed a lawsuit against Utz Quality Foods Inc.
for allegedly falsely advertising that its Dirty Potato Chips
brand was "all natural" and preservative-free.
Cyprus Hashtpari claimed in the suit, filed May 18, that the Dirty
Potato Chips products contain "non-natural, artificial, synthetic
ingredients and preservatives," despite conflicting advertising on
the chips' bags.
The offending flavors named in the suit are mesquite bbq, jalapeno
heat, sour cream and onion, sea salt and vinegar, funky fusion,
cracked pepper and sea salt, pesto and parmesan and smoky
chipotle.
Mr. Hashtpari began purchasing the chips from local gas stations
in Venture County, California beginning in 2013. He believed the
chips were, in fact all natural and did not contain preservatives,
the suit states. Had he known that was not the case, he would not
have purchased the chips or paid as much for them, the suit
states.
Utz allegedly misrepresented its product and violated California
civil, business and professions and commercial code, according to
the lawsuit.
Mr. Hashtpari and others in the suit are being represented by
Barbara Rohr and Benjamin Heikali of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in Los
Angeles. They are seeking a jury trial.
VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Probation Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Ventura County Superior
Court refuses to return unearned probation fees when probation is
terminated early, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal
Court.
WALT DISNEY: Calif. Judge Wants Investors' Suit Revised
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose
dismissed with leave to amend a Disney shareholders class action
over anticompetitive labor agreements between animation studios,
finding the plaintiffs did not show that Disney's board of
directors knew about the conspiracy.
Plaintiff brought a stockholder derivative suit for the benefit of
nominal defendant The Walt Disney Company against current and
former directors, executive officers, and other individuals for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment as a
result of their purported knowledge of anticompetitive labor
agreements between Disney and other animation studios.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
plead demand futility under Rule 23.1 and failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court heard argument on this motion on
May 19, 2016.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman says Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint by no later than August 24, 2016.
The case captioned, EUGENE F. TOWERS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT A.
IGER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04609-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
WELLS FARGO: Settles Genuine Title Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that finally, if you have a
Wells Fargo mortgage, did you use Genuine Title to close it?
A class action settlement alleges Wells employees received
benefits for pushing the title company to customers. It allegedly
happened between 2009 and 2014.
If you qualify, you're entitled up to 120 percent of what you paid
to Genuine Title. You should find that amount on your settlement
statement.
WESTERN POWER: Elderly Woman Added as Class Action Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Beattie, writing for WAtoday, reports that a group of
Parkerville bushfire victims say they were reluctant and wary
about suing an elderly woman over the power pole which sparked the
2014 blaze.
Noreen Campbell, 83, owns the Granite Road property where the pole
collapsed and sparked the fire.
Her name was added to a multi-million dollar class action.
Greg Jones, from the Stoneville and Parkerville Progress
Association, said it was a step which had been taken very
reluctantly.
"The plaintiff association has been very concerned about her
welfare and wellbeing but we took this action on legal advice," he
said.
Mr. Jones said that the legal situation regarding Mrs. Campbell
had changed recently.
"The original report into the Parkerville fire stated that there
was not intention to taking action against the householder," he
said.
"But then the state government started legal action against her
and her insurers, which I understand was about loss of assets like
power poles and wires.
"When that happened we received legal advice that our class action
would be legally unsound if she was not included."
Mr. Jones said the writ was not aimed at her personally but was
targeting her insurers.
The two main targets of the compensation claim are Western Power
and its contractor Thiess.
The writ claims that the Western Power had a responsibility to
maintain the pole in a safe condition and that Thiess also owed a
duty of care because of its contract for maintaining and
inspecting the power pole.
The amended writ now claims that Mrs. Campbell also had a duty of
care to make sure the pole was in a safe and fit condition.
Mrs. Campbell had no comment on May 26, referring all enquiries to
her lawyers Minter Ellison.
There are about 140 residents involved in the class action. Some
are represented by lawyers Hall and Wilcox who have brought the
writ which now includes Mrs Campbell.
Others are represented by Slater and Gordon who also launched
legal action against Western Power claiming that more than $50
million in damages could be claimed against the utility.
The fire broke out in January 2014 and destroyed 57 properties and
damaged several more.
YAPSTONE INC: Response Deadline on Dismissal Bid Moved to June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re YapStone Data Breach, Case No. 3:15-cv-04429-
JSW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that the
Plaintiffs' time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
extended from May 24, 2016 to June 7, 2016. The hearing set on
June 10, 2016 is vacated and may be reset by further order, if
necessary.
A copy of the Court's May 25, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/cSoZ6h from Leagle.com.
YapStone is an online payment processing platform that caters to
niche industries with high-volume complex transactions such as
rental, hospitality, and churches.
Jonathan Koles, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Andrew P.
Bell -- abell@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Bradley K King -- bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson APC,
James A Barry -- jbarry@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Michael Andrew Galpern -- mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law
Firm, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert Ahdoot --
RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Theodore W.
Maya -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..
Christopher Bonnema, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher
McCall -- AMcCall@zlk.com -- Andrea Clisura -- AClisura@zlk.com
-- Nancy A. Kulesa -- NKulesa@zlk.com -- Shane T. Rowley --
SRowley@zlk.com -- and Shannon L Hopkins -- SHopkins@zlk.com -- at
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; and Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.
Plaintiff is also represented by:
John H. Donboli, Esq.
J L Sean Slattery, Esq.
12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: 858.793.6244
Fax: 858.793.6005
YapStone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald Irvin Raether,
Jr. -- ronald.raether@troutmansanders.com -- Hsiao C. Mao --
mark.mao@troutmansanders.com -- and Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr --
jessica.lohr@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP.
* SA Silicosis Class Action Ruling to Impact Local Common Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Oliveira, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that the
Johannesburg High Courts' decision in early May to give 69
mineworkers and silicosis sufferers the right to institute class
action against 32 current and historical South African gold mining
companies would have far-reaching implications for the country's
common law, according to law firm Clyde & Co. Speaking at a
breakfast discussion at the firm's Johannesburg offices, Clyde &
Co associate Gregg Hammond -- gregg.hammond@clydeco.com
-- said that the scope and magnitude of the case, which could see
about 500 000 current and former mineworkers receive up to R200
000 each, was unprecedented in South Africa. Mr. Hammond
explained that the class action comprised two separate classes,
one for current and former miners who had contracted silicosis,
and another for current and former mineworkers who had contracted
tuberculosis. Mr. Hammond noted that, prior to the High Court's
judgment, South African common law operated in such a manner that,
if a claimant died before the close of pleading, the claimant's
estate, which would include family, was not eligible to receive
compensation for general damages. General damages were determined
by a claimant's pain, suffering or inability to perform certain
functions, including work. The silicosis case judgment now made
it possible for a claimant's estate to receive compensation, even
in the event of death before the close of proceedings. Clyde & Co
partner Daniel le Roux -- daniel.leroux@clydeco.com -- stated that
this development would have an impact on all future compensation
claims and that the insurance industry would likely have to relook
at their policy models as a result.
* Bais Yaakov Files Seven Spam Fax Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------
Josh Nathan-Kazis, writing for the Forward, reports that sometime
in the late morning of November 27, 2012, a fax machine rang at a
high school for Orthodox girls in Rockland County, New York.
The message that spooled out of the machine's printer was an
invitation to an information session about a London-based
university.
The Orthodox school's response to the fax? A lawsuit, filed in
federal court against the London-based university.
It wasn't the school's first time suing over a fax. Bais Yaakov
of Spring Valley, located on a quiet suburban street near the town
of Monsey, New York, has initiated at least seven class action
lawsuits since 2011 under a federal law that restricts faxed
advertisements.
That federal law dates from the 1990s, when spam faxes tied up
phone lines and used up printer paper. Now, with many businesses
using virtual fax machines that deliver incoming messages as
digital files, the cost of spam faxes is often negligible.
Yet spam fax lawsuits are a growth industry among enterprising
tort lawyers, with the number of new cases skyrocketing since
2012. But Bais Yaakov is a highly unusual spam fax suit
plaintiff, experts told the Forward. Not-for-profits rarely act
as lead plaintiffs in these cases, and experts said they had never
heard of a school bringing a spam fax suit.
Bais Yaakov has sued companies in Massachusetts, New York and
Minnesota. In three separate lawsuits, the school has sued ACT,
Inc. -- the company behind the ACT college readiness test, Alloy,
Inc. -- the firm that created the Gossip Girl teen romance series
and the publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
"People bring these cases to me because they're sick and tired of
being bombarded with robocalls [and] faxes that tie up their
telephone lines and interfere with their businesses," said Bais
Yaakov's attorney in all of its spam fax cases, Aytan Bellin.
"This is something that the American people are furious about."
Mr. Bellin's firm received $900,000 of a $6 million settlement
reached this past March with the London-based university over the
2012 faxes. A $2.6 million settlement in a Bais Yaakov class
action case against the college guide publisher Peterson's earned
Mr. Bellin's firm over $800,000 in fees.
Bais Yaakov itself has not earned much money from the suits.
Between the two settlements reached so far in Bais Yaakov's cases,
the school appears to have received only $15,500.
Mr. Bellin is the husband of a prominent rabbi who leads the
Conservative movement's rabbinical arm.
At least one putative beneficiary of the Bais Yaakov suits
exhibited unease with the yeshiva's tactic. A rabbi at a
synagogue that was included as a member of the class in one of the
settled suits told the Forward that his congregation had chosen
not to accept settlement funds. "I don't think that we were
wronged," said the rabbi, who asked not to be named, in order to
protect relationships. "I don't want to collect money from a
lawsuit if I wasn't wronged."
Mr. Bellin declined to discuss Bais Yaakov, citing attorney-client
privilege. He said he would not comment on ongoing cases.
Bais Yaakov's principal, David Sussman, hung up the phone before a
Forward reporter could ask about the lawsuits. "I got to go,
sir," Mr. Sussman said.
Spam fax lawsuits are brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which is a 1991 federal statute, and a 2005
federal law called the Junk Fax Prevention Act. Those laws
require faxed advertisements to include instructions on how to opt
out of future messages. Recipients of faxes without opt-out
language can sue the sender for damages of up to $1,500 per fax.
By creating a class that bundles hundreds or even thousands of
potential recipients of a fax advertisement campaign, plaintiffs'
attorneys can push the potential damages into astronomically high
ranges, effectively forcing defendants to settle before trial.
Suits filed under the TCPA, which also provides damages for spam
phone calls and text messages, have exploded in recent years.
While just 14 suits were filed nationwide in 2007, nearly 4000
were filed in 2015, according to an analysis by WebRecon.
The explosion in litigation has drawn scrutiny from the Federal
Communications Commission, which regulates the industry, and from
the courts. In a March decision from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Daniel Manion criticized
the trend. "In practice, the TCPA is nailing the little guy,
while plaintiffs' attorneys take a big cut," Judge Manion wrote.
Defense attorneys, too, are critical. The law is being used
unfairly, said Justin O. Kay -- Justin.Kay@dbr.com -- who is a
partner in the Chicago office of the law firm Drinker Biddle and
Reath and specializes in defending TCPA class action suits. "It
is being leveraged by the plaintiffs' bar to attack law-abiding
businesses whose actions have caused no real harm to consumers and
who often settle these cases just because of the risks involved,"
Mr. Kay wrote in an email to the Forward. "Those settlements can
be massive."
Mr. Bellin and his White Plains, New York, firm, Bellin &
Associates, are active members of the TCPA plaintiffs' bar. Mr.
Bellin's wife, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, has served since 2009 as
executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the
membership association for Conservative rabbis.
Mr. Bellin's Bais Yaakov cases have targeted large firms and not
small businesses. Yet the alleged and admitted companies that
faxed were ones that could have, in theory, had legitimate
business with Bais Yaakov or its students. In the case against
the educational testing company ACT Inc., which is still ongoing,
the school sued the company over faxes reminding students to sign
up for the test. In the settled case against the college guide
company Peterson's, Bais Yaakov sued over faxes offering a free
online tool for guidance counselors. In an ongoing suit against a
firm called Varitronics, Bais Yaakov sued over faxes offering
deals on poster printers.
Bais Yaakov has also sued the FCC over an agency policy that would
make it harder to sue senders of solicited faxed advertisements
that don't include op-out language.
Another Bellin client, Brooklyn businessman Menachem Raitport, has
filed an ongoing spam fax suit against a firm called Harbour
Capital Corp. "You have a home office. And your fax machine just
wakes up one day and you have 20 faxes from bogus companies. You
like that?" Mr. Raitport asked when reached at Crown Kosher Meat
Market, his business. "I got fed up," Mr. Raitport said. "That's
why I looked for a lawyer.
* Spike in Shareholder Class Actions Very Important Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that with a
Cornerstone Research report recently revealing that the number of
accounting securities class action lawsuits went up again in 2015,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP partner Thomas O. Gorman --
gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- told Legal Newsline that "firms would be
well advised to carefully evaluate their compliance programs and
internal controls to ensure they are effective."
"This is a very important issue because it impacts investments and
stock prices across the board," Mr. Gorman said.
The report found that accounting case filings involving company
announcements of internal control weaknesses were the highest in
10 years. In 2015, 86 percent of accounting case settlements
involved allegations of internal control weaknesses, also the
highest proportion in the last 10 years, Cornerstone reported.
According to the report, 2015 was the third consecutive year that
the number of accounting-related filings increased. Specifically,
the report found that there were 71 securities class action
filings with accounting allegations in 2015.
According to Cornerstone Research, cases are considered accounting
cases if they involve allegations related to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) violations, auditing violations or
weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.
Mr. Gorman points to a post-market-crisis focus on these
accounting claims, as well as "an at-best weak economic recovery"
as driving factors for the increase.
"In the post-Sarbanes-Oxley era, these types of claims dwindled,
at least in part because of the legislative reforms but also in
the wake of a series of high-profile SEC enforcement actions," Mr.
Gorman said.
"Post market crisis, the SEC and the private bar again began to
focus on these claims. That focus, coupled with an at-best weak
economic recovery, is probably fostering the increase in claims.
This is particularly true for firms in areas where the economic
recovery has been limited."
Mr. Gorman said the Securities and Exchange Commission and class
action attorneys are bringing larger numbers of financial fraud
cases that include a variety of claims.
"Typically the cases involve efforts to boost the revenue by
things like 'channel stuffing,' premature recognition of revenue
and sham sales," Mr. Gorman said. "An alternate approach is to
suppress the expenses by things such as improperly capitalizing
them, which has the same effect as boosting revenue directly."
Cornerstone reported that the Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index
rose to $34.8 billion for accounting cases filed in 2015, the
second largest amount in the last seven years.
The district encompassed by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which includes California, saw the most accounting cases
in 2015, with 37 percent of cases filed there. The number of
accounting cases against companies with headquarters outside the
United States increased 43 percent to its second highest level in
the last 10 years. Also, the report indicated that accounting
cases against companies headquartered in China increased 75
percent from 2014 to 2015.
For settled cases with GAAP allegations, settlement amounts were
highest for write-downs. Following a significant decline in 2014,
the report found that the proportion of accounting settlement
dollars represented by financial firms led all sectors in 2015,
with 11 settlements in this sector averaging more than $133
million.
Mr. Gorman expects the trend of accounting claim increases to
continue, given the current financial environment, especially in
economic areas where the recovery may be faltering.
"In addition, look for the expertise of the regulators to increase
as they continue to focus on these claims," Mr. Gorman said.
* 401(k) Plan Sponsors Focus on Fees to Lessen Class Action Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Miller, writing for Society for Human Resources
Management, reports that as more plan participants scrutinize
401(k) fees, plan sponsors are re-examining how much they're
paying their service providers for plan administration, reveals
the annual Retirement Planscape report by market research firm
Market Strategies International.
Plan sponsors, as fiduciaries, are also keeping a wary eye on
investment fund fees so as to better serve participants and to
lessen their risk of facing class-action lawsuits.
"For the first time, the aspect of reducing plan costs outranks
all other priorities on which plan sponsors are directing their
attention," noted Julia Johnston-Ketterer, senior director at
Market Strategies in Livonia, Mich., and co-author of the May 2016
report.
Plan administration fees are the most common reason for switching
record keepers, and likewise are an important driver of
satisfaction and loyalty when client expectations are fulfilled,
according to the survey, conducted among 1,435 plan sponsors from
Feb. 15 to March 15.
The perception that a 401(k) services provider delivers "good
value for the money" gives a firm's image the biggest boost,
"reinforcing the point that plan sponsors are seeking value from a
provider" beyond the investment growth reflected on their
participants' quarterly statements, said Ms. Johnston-Ketterer.
"The aspect of value is not just about being the cheapest," added
Linda York, senior vice president of the financial services
division at Market Strategies. "It's more about justifying the
fees that you charge and demonstrating the benefits of the service
you provide in a way that's meaningful to your target audience."
Seeking Value
Denver-based Empower Retirement emerged this year as the provider
that 401(k) plan sponsors associate most with providing good value
for the money. While the firm serves 401(k) clients of all sizes,
it "substantially improved its brand recognition in the smaller
end of the market and is really resonating among these smaller
plans," said York.
"Fidelity Investments and Vanguard still rule the roost in the
larger end of the market," York continued, "benefiting from their
well-earned reputation for being easy to do business with along
with providing the greatest value for the money."
Among other plan sponsors associated with "good value for the
money" in this year report were Ascensus, Betterment, OneAmerica,
Paychex, American Funds, ADP Retirement Services and Wells Fargo.
Fearing Lawsuits
Investment fund fees are the other big costs associated with
retirement plans, and fund fees perceived as excessive are driving
more class-action litigation against employers, CNBC reported in
April. These lawsuits usually center around allegations that
participants' retirement savings were compromised because
employers, as plan fiduciaries, failed to act in participants'
best interests and breached their duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allowing high fees, bad
fund choices and conflicts of interest.
Plan sponsors' fears of being targeted aren't misplaced. For
instance, St. Louis-based law firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton has
developed a reputation for suing 401(k) plans, winning more than
$300 million in settlements or awards since 2006.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Tibble
v. Edison supported the arguments of class-action attorneys suing
plan fiduciaries over high mutual fund fees in defined
contribution plans. Now, "[plaintiffs' lawyers] are looking for
the next class-action bonanza, and I think it's most likely going
to be in the ERISA area," said Marcia Wagner, managing director of
the Wagner Law Group of Boston, in an interview with CNBC.
And it's not only big corporations that are at risk. A Minnesota
collision shop is being sued over its 114-participant 401(k) plan.
The primary argument in Damberg v. LaMettry's Collission Inc., a
class action filed in district court on May 18, is that LaMettry's
401(k) plan used higher-priced retail class shares when lower-
priced institutional class shares were available, exposing plan
participants to excessive fees.
The suit shows that "even modest size 401(k) plans are fair game,"
explained Catherine Gonzalez, counsel at law firm Nixon Peabody in
Chicago. "There are lessons to be learned from the unprecedented
number of ERISA fiduciary breach class actions being filed," she
advised, including:
-- Have a process in place to make prudent decisions about plan
investments and the retention of service providers.
-- Continuously monitor and assess the ongoing prudence of the
investments and the reasonableness of plan administrative
expenses.
-- Make any changes needed based on such diligence.
*********
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 * * *