/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160620.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 122 Headlines 321 CAPITAL: ABC Business Seeks Certification of Three Classes ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class Certification Sought in "Wilson" Suit ALSCO INC: English et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice AMERICAN AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Seek Certification of Class ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Arguments Heard in 9th Cir. Appeal AS SEEN ON TV: Former Unit Faces Class Action & Lowe's Claim ASTORIA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Litigation AT&T SERVICES: Class Cert. Sought for Training Specialists BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund BANKRATE INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway BBX CAPITAL: Court Reserves Decision to Approve $9.5MM Settlement BLOOMINGDALE'S: "Hall" Suit Seeks Recovery of Illegal Deductions BLUE STAR: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kang" Suit Claims CARTER'S RETAIL: Final Approval of "Dudum" Suit Settlement Sought CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pending CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bonnano" CENTURY ALUMINUM: 4th Circuit Appeal by USW Remains Pending CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bender" Suit Claims CHATOUS INC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit CLECO CORPORATE: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT: Default Judgment in "Hogan" Vacated CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: July 8 Hearing on Class Notice Set CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Defendants, Arkin et al. Agree on Consolidation CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Remands Electrical Workers Suit CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Sanchez" Action in Colorado Terminated CLUB MADONNA: "Leon" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay COLLECTO INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Layton" Action Claims COMMUNITY HEATH: Faces "Ryerson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COSMIC CORP: "McKinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach DOLLAR GENERAL: "Meyer" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: $4.5MM Accord Awaits Final Documentation EHEALTH INC: Plaintiff Filed Notice of Submission ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado May File 2nd Amended Complaint ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Lawsuit in Very Early Stages ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry and Myers Complaints F&H FOODMART: "Khalid" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. FANDUEL INC: "Fischler" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. FANDUEL INC: "Leung" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Paid All Settlement Claims in Daisy Suit FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Rear Axle Defect FORT WAYNE, IN: See Seeks Class Certification of Homeless Locals FOUR CORNERS: Faces "Riskin" Sued Over Spring Rewards Program FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Actions Filed Related to Westport Merger GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Jefferson County" Sues Over Overpriced Alum GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sobczak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT H&O INVESTMENTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Molina" Suit HALLIBURTON ENERGY: New Plaintiffs Must File Own Suit HCA HOLDINGS: $215-Mil. Settlement in Schuh Action Has Final OK HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Fee Recoveries Pending HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Challenged HOBBY LOBBY STORES: "Kicic" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay HOIST LIFTRUCK: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay HRG GROUP: Appeal Filed in Ludwick Class Action ICARE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Huckabee" Suit Claims ICONIX BRAND: 3 Class Suits Remain Pending in New York Court IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Sheib" Class Suit in New York Court KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Fish" Class Taken Under Advisement KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Keener" Class Taken Under Advisement KEARNES PAINTING: "Miller" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation MAXLINEAR INC: Merger Litigation Dismissed MAYFIELD GARDENS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MDL 2159: Hearing on Bid to Decertify "Ellison" Moved to Aug. 5 MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Reserves Decision on Settlement MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MP CALIFORNIA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay NANOSPHERE INC: Faces "Al-Mullah" Suit Over Sale to Luminex NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Wishnev" Suit ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Class Action Remains Pending PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Action Trial to Begin October 3 PACIFIC PREMIER: Dismissal of "Parshall" Suit Under Review PERMIAN SAND: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay PERSONAL PHYSICIANS: "Philip" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay PETCO ANIMAL: "Feist" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California PINNACLE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morgan" Suit Claims PIZZERIAS LLC: "Jimenez" Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Suit POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending RUCKUS WIRELESS: "Hussey" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims SIERRA TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Class Suit in California SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held SUTTER WEST: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAYLOR SAFETY: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay THREE SONS: "Serrano-Mendiola" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay TIMCO SERVICES: "Marshall" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay TIME WARNER CABLE: Settlement in "Gillings" Has Final Approval TOYODA GOSEI: Landers Sues Over Brake Hoses Price-Fixing TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Sued Over Fiduciary Duty Breach UGI CORPORATION: Appeal by Direct Customers Ongoing UNITED STATES: USDA Must Deposit $95,000 to Black Farmers Fund UNO RESTAURANTS: "Osman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages VALERO REFINING: Wulfe Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir. VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay WILMINGTON, DE: Appeal Filed in "Wright" Civil Rights Suit WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Luca" Suit Over Undisclosed Fees ZILLOW INC: Appeals Cal. State Court Ruling in "Freeman" Suit ********* 321 CAPITAL: ABC Business Seeks Certification of Three Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- ABC Business Forms, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action titled ABC BUSINESS FORMS, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. 321 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action. The Plaintiff defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. ABC further asks that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vc6PFH71 The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com jclark@edcombs.com ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class Certification Sought in "Wilson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CALVIN WILSON and DAVID BLUME, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, ALLEN COUNTY, ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), ask the Court to certify the proposed Class: "All individuals who have or will have misdemeanor criminal cases pending in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, who have or will have an attorney assigned to them due to indigency and have not been convicted or entered into a plea agreement." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PrV1N4IN The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Myers, Esq. David W. Frank, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES Skyler Spurling-Newsome, No. 33833-02 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424 0600 Facsimile: (260) 424 0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com ALSCO INC: English et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit titled ROBERT ENGLISH, ALEX RIVERA, and DANIEL JOYCE, Each Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ALSCO, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY COMPANY, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:16-cv-4910-MFK (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) order Defendant to produce the information of the putative collective members no later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order granting the current motion; (2) approve the form and circulation of the notice and consent form as set forth herein; (3) approve the sending of the reminder postcard as set forth herein; and (4) grant counsel a period of 90 days from the date Defendant fully and completely produces the potential collective members' contact information during which to distribute the notice and file consent forms. Plaintiffs formerly worked for Defendant in a job position that ALSCO referred to interchangeably as "District Manager" and "Service Center Manager." Plaintiffs allege that ALSCO misclassified the SCM/DM position as salary exempt, and as a result deprived them of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, in violation of Section 207(a)(1) the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o4FISR2u The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582 5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. Maryna Jackson, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott M. Petersen, Esq. Greg Saylin, Esq. FABIAN VANCOTT 215 S. State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 531 8900 E-mail: spetersen@fabianvancott.com gsaylin@fabianvancott.com - and - Brian E. Spang, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 750 3532 E-mail: bspang@mcguirewoods.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Seek Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying that the action captioned CHER THOMPSON, Individually; SHIRLEY TRENT; LINDA IGOE; THERESA MARTIN; CHERYL ADAMS; DONNA HOLZBERGER; PAMELIA MITCHNER; SIMON PARSONS; MARGARET LORRAINE WOLFORD; FAITH MANNO BALSIER; CAROLYN SCHWARTZ; RODNEY JORDAN; SARAH WOODRUFF WATKINS; CAROL SHIELDS; PAMELA KISELA; CAROL REICHERT; SANDRA WOOD; NATASHA ALEXANDERIA POPOVICH; YVETTE MARIE REIDY; JOSE LUIS CALDAS; PATRICIA BIAS; NANCY JOHNSON BLASINGAME; MARY SEARS; KATHLEEN FREDERICK WOOD; JOANN MONDRUS; SCOTT WESSEL; SANDRA KAY BERRY; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a AMR Corporation, and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07980 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants. The named Plaintiffs are former American flight attendants, who retired prior to January 1, 2014. As alleged in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, the proposed class is defined as: a. Individuals who retired at the age of 55 years or older and had 10 or more years of company seniority; b. Individuals who severed employment with a minimum of five (5) years of occupational seniority whose age plus years of occupational seniority equals forty; c. Individuals who accepted travel separation packages for unlimited D2 travel for a certain block of time; d. Individuals who left employment under the Special Voluntary Early Out Retirement Packages from 1994-1995; and e. Other retired and/or separated employees who were given, in accord with American's corporate policy, the same travel classification that they had immediately prior to leaving their positions. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2zXDkOit The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nancy Richter, Esq. SLAVIN & SLAVIN LLC 100 N. LaSalle St., 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-7848 Facsimile: (312) 782-8272 E-mail: nrichter@slavinlegal.com ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Arguments Heard in 9th Cir. Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice." "On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims." AS SEEN ON TV: Former Unit Faces Class Action & Lowe's Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ As Seen On TV, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company received on April 29, 2016, a notice (but not official service) that Infusion Brands, Inc., its discontinued subsidiary, may be named as a defendant in Flint v. Infusion Brands, Inc., et al, a purported class action case filed but not yet served in federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated plaintiffs were damaged when Infusion Brands, Inc. ceased to sell replacement parts and accessories for a former product, the DualTools PS7000, a polisher/sander. Lowe's, Inc. has also sought indemnification from Infusion Brands, Inc. for its costs related to the action. Infusion Brands, Inc., as a discontinued subsidiary, has no assets and no ability to pay any judgment that may be rendered. ASTORIA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding has been reached in a Merger-related litigation. Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, six lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. These actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6) The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015). On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York lawsuits under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015, and on January 29, 2016 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. In addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January 22, 2016). The plaintiff in this case filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2016. Each of the lawsuits is a putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria and names as defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB, or collectively, the defendants. The various complaints generally allege that the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Merger Agreement because they failed to properly value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration. The complaints further allege that the directors of Astoria approved the Merger through a flawed and unfair sales process, alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the Astoria directors regarding certain personal and financial benefits they will receive upon consummation of the proposed transaction that public stockholders of Astoria will not receive. The complaints also variously allege that the Astoria directors breached their fiduciary duties because they improperly agreed to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria, including a no solicitation provision that allegedly prevents other buyers from participating in discussions which may lead to a superior proposal, a matching rights provision that allows NYCB to match any competing proposal in the event one is made and a provision that requires Astoria to pay NYCB a termination fee of $69.5 million under certain circumstances. In addition, the lawsuit filed in Delaware also alleges that Astoria's directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing a false and materially misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC. Each of the complaints further alleges that NYCB aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria directors. Each of the actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed Merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek compensatory damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendants believe these actions are without merit. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at March 31, 2016 with respect to these matters. On April 6, 2016, the defendants and lead plaintiffs for the consolidated New York lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the New York lawsuits. The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Astoria will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the New York lawsuits (including the amended consolidated complaint) and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The supplemental disclosures were made available to Astoria's shareholders on April 8, 2016 through a filing with the SEC by Astoria on a Current Report on Form 8-K. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Astoria's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the Supreme Court of the State of New York will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Astoria challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. If the MOU is terminated, no assurance can be given at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material. AT&T SERVICES: Class Cert. Sought for Training Specialists ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned WENDELL WALTON and MICHAEL MANTONYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional FLSA collective action certification of a small group of AT&T employees asserting overtime misclassification claims. According to the lawsuit, AT&T's records indicate there are only approximately 301 of them nationwide. The employees at issue work in two job titles: "Senior Training Manager Design" and "Senior Training Manager Delivery". Their role at AT&T is to assemble, compile, and communicate the internal training materials to AT&T employees. They do this work with minimal authority and little discretion to change the content of the materials or alter the manner in which courses are taught. Rather, they follow set procedures, use proprietary software programs, and follow AT&T's teaching guidelines and materials. The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) conditionally certify the proposed FLSA Collective, (2) order AT&T to produce an updated class list to Plaintiffs' counsel, (3) direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the action by mail and e-mail using the proposed Notice, (4) permit potential Collective Members to file Consent to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website submission, until 90 days after the date of an order granting this motion, and (5) permit the dissemination of a reminder postcard by mail and e-mail. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NTTrRPFT The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Relic Sun, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638 8800 Facsimile: (415) 638 8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (646) 509 2060 E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com - and - Jason C. Marsili, Esq. Brianna M. Primozic, Esq. POSNER & ROSEN LLP 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 389 6050 Facsimile: (213) 389 0663 E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com bprimozic@posner-rosen.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Nomura International PLC, Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04151 (S.D. N.Y, June 3, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief for violations of federal antitrust laws and of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds denominated in various currencies and allegedly colluded with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ, England. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense Cedex, 92920 Paris, France. Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York. Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York. Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Plaintiff is represented by: Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Benjamin Galdston, Esq. David Kaplan, Esq. Lucas Gilmore, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 720-3183 Fax: (858) 793-0323 Email: blairn@blbglaw.com benjaming@blbglaw.com davidk@blbglaw.com lucasg@blbglaw.com brandonm@blbglaw.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. William P. Butterfield, Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wbutterfield@hausfeld.com tkearns@hausfeld.com slafreniere@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com BANKRATE INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a securities litigation remains pending. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages. Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive. On January 8, 2016 the Company and the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is pending. The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to predict its outcome. The Company cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result from an adverse resolution of this matter. Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v. Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v. Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily dismissed by their respective plaintiffs. BBX CAPITAL: Court Reserves Decision to Approve $9.5MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has reserved decision on final approval of the settlement in the case, In Re New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.). Twenty proposed settlements totaling $9,585,000 have been preliminarily approved in the putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of New Jersey real property owners who had a tax sale certificate issued with respect to their real property that was also purchased by a Defendant at a public auction in New Jersey at an interest rate above 0% from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2009. TSCs are certificates acquired by a purchaser at a public auction and represent that purchaser's right to collect a delinquent property tax or other municipal charge, including water or sewer charges, from an owner of property in New Jersey, along with associated interest and fees. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to grant final approval of the Proposed Settlements. Information on the case is available at: http://www.njtaxliensettlements.com/ On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%." Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main antitrust claim. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014. While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court and the fairness hearing was held on April 25, 2016, during which the Court reserved decision on final approval. BLOOMINGDALE'S: "Hall" Suit Seeks Recovery of Illegal Deductions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04137 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages and costs, attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful deductions from wages in violation of New York Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Wage and Hour Laws. Bloomingdale's is a corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio and maintains its headquarters at 1000 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Plaintiff worked at their flagship store in 1000 Third Avenue, New York, NY as a commission salesperson. Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 303 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 458-1010 Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com BLUE STAR: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Martinez and Yolanda Garrido, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Julia Rodriguez, individually Plaintiffs, v. Blue Star Farms, Inc., and Anthony Harry Marr, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (W.D. Mich., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, injunctive and other make-whole equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Michigan Minimum Wage Law and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Blue Star Farms, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that employed Plaintiffs as farmworkers to hand harvest blueberries. Defendants allegedly failed to record employee hours worked and pieces harvested, resulting in a failure to pay them all promised wages and federal and state minimum wages for each compensable hour worked. Plaintiff is represented by: Teresa Hendricks (P46500) Mariza Gamez-Garcia (P64271) Benjamin O'Hearn (P79252) MIGRANT LEGAL AID 1104 Fuller Ave., NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Tel: (616) 454-5055 Email: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com mgamezgarcia@migrantlegalaid.com bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com - and - Marni Willenson, Esq. WILLENSON LAW, LLC 542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605 Tel: (312) 546-4910 Email: marni@willensonlaw.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kang" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Daewoo Kang, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Capital Management Services, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03267-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com CARTER'S RETAIL: Final Approval of "Dudum" Suit Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order finally approving the proposed class action settlement in the case styled JULIE DUDUM, ESTELLA GARCIA, LUNINGNING LUDOVICO, LAKISHA POWELL, and COLUMBA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-CV-00988 HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs also seek an order: -- finally certifying a settlement class; -- finally approving the appointment of Plaintiffs JULIE DUDUM, ESTELLA GARCIA, LUNINGNING LUDOVICO, LAKISHA POWELL, and COLUMBA GUTIERREZ as Class Representatives; -- finally approving the appointment of Shea & McIntyre, A.P.C., and Kletter + Nguyen Law, LLP, as Class Counsel; -- finally approving the payment of reasonable costs of administration to Simpluris, Inc. from the Maximum Settlement Amount, which is estimated at $13,599 and will be determined after the completion of the administration; -- finally approving the Incentive Awards of $5,000 to each of the five named Plaintiffs; -- finally approving payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at an amount not to exceed one-third of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $157,500; -- finally approving a payment of $4,000 to cover penalties under the Private Attorney General Act; -- entering a Final Judgment consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and -- retaining jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The Court will commence a hearing on July 28, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=en5OPQD5 Plaintiffs Julie Dudum and Estella Garcia are represented by: Cary Kletter, Esq. Sally Trung Nguyen, Esq. KLETTER + NGUYEN LAW LLP 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350 San Mateo, CA 94403 Telephone: (415) 434-3400 E-mail: ckletter@kletterlaw.com snguyen@kletterlaw.com Plaintiffs Luningning Ludovico, Lakisha Powell, and Columba Gutierrez are represented by: John F. McIntyre, Jr., Esq. Kevin R. Elliott, Esq. SHEA & McINTYRE, A P.C. 2166 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126-1144 Telephone: (408) 298-6611 Facsimile: (408) 275-0814 E-mail: jmcintyre@sheamcintyre.com kelliott@sheamcintyre.com CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellceutix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint entitled O'Connell v. Cellceutix Corp. et al. (No. 1:15-cv-07194) was filed in September 2015 by a law firm in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its officers alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects.The Company believes that the claims are without merit and has filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The Court's ruling on this motion is now pending. Cellceutix intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is in the business of developing innovative small molecule therapies to treat diseases with significant medical need, particularly in the areas of cancer, antibiotics and inflammatory disease. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bonnano" --------------------------------------------------------------- Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the decision on the motion to dismiss the "Bonnano" class action lawsuit remains pending. On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014, through April 7, 2015, the Company made material misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of the damages sought. On June 3, 2015, defendants were served. On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015. On that date, one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative plaintiff Michelle Jackson. On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as class counsel. As stipulated among the parties, Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17, 2015. On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff submitted a response on March 1, 2016 and oral argument on the motion to dismiss took place on April 20, 2016. The decision on the motion to dismiss is pending as of the filing date of this Form 10-Q. Discovery will be stayed pending the decision on the motion to dismiss. The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Liu. The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the range of potential loss. CENTURY ALUMINUM: 4th Circuit Appeal by USW Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by the USW to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remains pending. In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"), the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In September 2015, the trial court granted CAWV's motion for summary judgment of these actions. The trial court decision is currently being appealed by the USW to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Century Aluminum is a global producer of primary aluminum with aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the United States and Iceland. CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bender" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dovid Bender, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16- cv-03240-MLC-DEA (D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Chase Receivables operates a debt collection company headquartered at 1247 Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN G. KELSEN ESQ., LLC 1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (201) 692-0073 Facsimile: (201) 692-0151 E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com CHATOUS INC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit titled BRITTANY MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHATOUS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00143-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify two classes: a) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE American Insurance Company in the State of Florida, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, and who incurred additional charges in excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Excess Fee Car Rental Class"). b) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE American Insurance Company Customers in Florida, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, and who incurred additional sales tax on fees in excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Sales Tax Car Rental Class"). Mr. Morgan also asks the Court to: (1) enter and continue Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and defer its ruling on Plaintiff's Motion pursuant to Local Rule 4.04(c); (2) allow for the Parties to engage in discovery on class- wide issues; (3) grant Plaintiff leave to file a full memorandum in support of his Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion of class-wide discovery; (4) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification or, alternatively, grant the motion in its entirety after the close of class-wide discovery and full briefing of the issues presented herein; and (5) provide all other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xggjVltk The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND LAW, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St. Ste 209 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 603 6031 E-mail: firm@ednormand.com ed@ednormand.com CLECO CORPORATE: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Cleco Corporation) on April 13, 2016, completed the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Corporation, Cleco Partners L.P., and Cleco MergerSub Inc. As a result of the merger transaction, Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC became a privately held company and its equity shares are no longer publicly traded. At April 13, 2016, the outstanding membership interest of Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was held by Cleco Group LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners L.P. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC and Cleco Power LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in the merger class action have indicated that they will file yet another amended Petition within 30 days after closing of the Merger, which occurred on April 13, 2016. In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014- 11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. On March 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. By their agreement to an Order that was entered on March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs indicated that they will file yet another amended Petition within 30 days after closing of the Merger, which occurred on April 13, 2016. This Order also established a schedule for the defendants to file exceptions to such amended Petition and for briefing of same. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT: Default Judgment in "Hogan" Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled JESSICA HOGAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT, INC. (d/b/a SIRENS), FRANCIS SHARRAK, MICHAEL SHARRAK, CHAD SULLIVAN, & DOMINICK ALKAMMO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Algenon L. Marbley granted Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, and denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff was a bartender and exotic dancer at Sirens, a Columbus- area strip club. She filed a class and collective action complaint in the Court on October 6, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices, including charging Plaintiff fees for exotic dances for customers, charging Plaintiff 10% on customer tips left on credit cards, and requiring Plaintiff to pay tips to non-tipped employees. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' behavior violates portions of 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act, Article II Sec. 34(a) of the Ohio Constitution, and Sec. 4113.15 of the Ohio Revised Code. Defendants advanced six defenses are: (1) that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) that Plaintiff's case is not appropriate for class action; (3) that the attorney fees and costs sought by Plaintiff are not recoverable; (4) that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations; (5) that the liquidated and treble damages sought by Plaintiff are barred in whole or part due to Defendants' subjective, good-faith beliefs; and (6) that the liquidated and treble damages sought by Plaintiff are barred in whole or part due to Defendants' reasonable belief that their behavior comported with the relevant employment laws. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XSq57NES CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: July 8 Hearing on Class Notice Set --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled Michelle Labriola, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Clinton Entertainment Management LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04123 (N.D. Ill.), Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stayed Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23 Class Action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law pending completion of class-based discovery. A hearing is set for July 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., regarding notices to the putative class. The court agrees that first-class mail notice should be supplemented with e-mail and text messages. Motion for protective order is stricken without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IhI48Tap CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Defendants, Arkin et al. Agree on Consolidation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants have filed a stipulated motion to consolidate the Moran action, now pending in the District of Colorado, with the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions. On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified damages. Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 13, 2015. On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the District of Colorado and the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non- opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application. On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the "Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants filed a statement in the Northern District of California supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to Transfer. On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016, the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to Transfer. On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the putative class. On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions (the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto, including the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to a further agreed-upon extension by the parties, the Consolidated Complaint was filed on May 6, 2016, while the Motion to Dismiss is due on July 11, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiff's opposition on August 19, 2016 and the defendants' reply on September 7, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a stipulated motion to consolidate the Moran action, now pending in the District of Colorado, with the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Remands Electrical Workers Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL #357 PENSION AND HEALTH & WELFARE TRUSTS, Plaintiff, v. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00933-EMC (N.D. Cal.), remanding the case to the San Mateo Superior Court. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 5, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/iYrUH2 from Leagle.com. Clovis Oncology, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, said it expected that the court will deny a Motion to Transfer as moot. On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to the Motion to Remand. "We expect that the court will deny the Motion to Transfer as moot. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Electrical Workers Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful," the Company said. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Sanchez" Action in Colorado Terminated -------------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action lawsuit by Maris Sanchez was terminated on March 14, 2016, by the District of Colorado. On February 19, 2016, Maris Sanchez, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the "Sanchez Complaint") against certain officers and directors of Clovis in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Sanchez Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Clovis by participating in misrepresentation of the Company's business operations and prospects. The Sanchez Complaint also alleged claims for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The Sanchez Complaint sought, among other things, an award of money damages. On March 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Sanchez Complaint without prejudice. CLUB MADONNA: "Leon" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Martin Leon, Plaintiff, v. Club Madonna Inc., a Florida Corporation and Leroy Griffith, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22032-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Club Madonna is a Florida corporation operating an adult entertainment club within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Leon claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (786) 923-5899 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone (305) 773-6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com COLLECTO INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Layton" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Dorissa Layton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 3:16-cv-03269- PGS-LHG (D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Collecto, Inc. is a debt management and recovery resource company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alan Auslaender, Esq. THE AUSLAENDER FIRM, P.C. 90-35 148th Street Jamaica, NY 11435 Telephone: (917) 793-9022 E-mail: justin@theauslaenderfirm.com COMMUNITY HEATH: Faces "Ryerson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Nancy Ryerson, on behalf of herself and similarly-situated v. Community Heath Care, Inc. d/b/a Community Substance Abuse Centers, and Steven Kassels, (Mass. Cmmw., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws. The Defendants operate a private corporation that provides outpatient services specializing in the treatment of narcotic addiction. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Davis, Esq. DAVIS & DAVIS P.C. Park Place South 350 Park Street, Suite 105 North Reading, MA 01864 Telephone: (978) 276-0777 E-mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com COSMIC CORP: "McKinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Felicia McKinney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cosmic Corp. d/b/a COCO'S, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22045-UU (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum wage and overtime owed, recovery of misappropriated tips and misappropriated funds, liquidated damages and interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff is a former exotic dancer at Coco's adult entertainment club. She claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: 954-763-5722 Facsimile: 954-763-5723 Email: chad@levylevylaw.com DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Flaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. d/b/a Subway, Case No. 0:16- cv-61198-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Doctor's Associates, Inc. owns and operates a chain of sandwich restaurants in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com DOLLAR GENERAL: "Meyer" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Nicholas Meyer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02091, was transferred from the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00522-GAF to the proceeding. The Defendants operate a chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Facsimile: (504) 524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com - and - Colin W. McClain, Esq. J'Nan C. Kimak, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 P.O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com jck@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley G. Habiger, Esq. 1511 S 50th Street Kansas City, KS 66106 Telephone: (651) 216-7881 E-mail: aghabiger@gmail.com - and - Bradley J. Yeretsky, Esq. Brett A. Shanks, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 842-8600 Facsimile: (816) 691-3495 E-mail: brad.yeretsky@stinsonleonard.com brett.shanks@stinson.com DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: $4.5MM Accord Awaits Final Documentation -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action for $4.5 million and the settlement is subject to final documentation as well as court approval. On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on December 1, 2014. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February 20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on April 6, 2015. Dynavax has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as court approval, provides for a payment of $4.5 million and will result in a dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants in connection with the securities class action. The settlement payment will be paid for by defendants' insurance carriers. Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that uses toll-like receptor ("TLR") biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics. EHEALTH INC: Plaintiff Filed Notice of Submission ------------------------------------------------- eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiff has filed a notice of submission to the court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint. On January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chairman and chief executive officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and our senior vice president and chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 6, 2015, the court consolidated the two cases. On June 10, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance, guidance and operations during an alleged class period of May 1, 2014 to January 14, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges that we and Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief as the court deems proper. On July 15, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 14, 2016, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days, which was later extended to April 27, 2016. On April 27, 2016, plaintiff did not file an amended complaint but filed a notice of submission to the court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint. "We believe the lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against it," the Company said. eHealth, Inc. is a private online source of health insurance for individuals, families and small businesses in the United States. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado May File 2nd Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiff in the "Machado" class action lawsuit has been given leave to file a second amended complaint. The Company said, "On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of our common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against us and our chief executive officer and our former chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a second amended complaint, file on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those claims challenged as false or misleading certain of our disclosures about our total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year for our products and services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and our customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation. The plaintiff has recently been given leave to file a second amended complaint, which will supersede the current complaint." "We and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding," the Company said. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Lawsuit in Very Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action lawsuit by William McGee is in its very early stages. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non- disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This litigation is in its very early stages. "We and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding," the Company said. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry and Myers Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of the complaints by Irfan Chawdry and David V. Myers. On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry Complaint, the Complaints) filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. F&H FOODMART: "Khalid" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Umair Khalid individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. F&H Food mart, Inc., Super Stop, Sabahat N. Saba and Muneer Khan, Defendants, Case 0:16-cv-61176-JAL (S.D. Fla, June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. F&H Food mart, Inc. operates as Super Stop with Sabahat N. Saba and Muneer Khan as owners. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cashier and claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 Email: agp@agppattorneys.com apetisco@agppattorneys.com rregueiro@agppattorneys.com pn@agppattorneys.com FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Fernando Delgado and Ronald S. Randle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc., FanDuel Ltd, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-09907 was transferred from Central District of California to the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-11047-GAO to the proceeding. The Defendants operate an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Leimbach, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. 29229 Canwood Street Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Jui-Ting Anna Hsia ZWILLGEN LAW LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 425 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 590-2341 Facsimile: (415) 636-5965 E-mail: anna@zwillgen.com FANDUEL INC: "Fischler" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FanDuel Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00989, was transferred from Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv- 11034-GAO to the proceeding. FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Barrett, Esq BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Jamie Levitt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY Telephone: (212) 468-8000 E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com FANDUEL INC: "Leung" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Wesley Leung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and FanDuel Ltd., Case No. 5:15-cv-00835, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-11048-GAO to the proceeding. The Defendants operate an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Alan Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: aventanilla@milsteinadelman.com - and - Sarah L. Hennessy, Esq. FLAHERTY HENNESSY LLP 8055 West Manchester Street Suite 420 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 Telephone: (310) 305-1280 Facsimile: (310) 305-1210 E-mail: sarah@fhattorneys.com - and - Edward Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP 110 Southeast 6th Street Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Jui-Ting Anna Hsia, Esq. Jacob A. Sommer, Esq. ZWILLGEN LAW LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 425 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 590-2341 Facsimile: (415) 636-5965 E-mail: anna@zwillgen.com jake@zwillgen.com - and - Katherine M. Robison, Esq. ZWILLGEN LAW LLP 915 Battery Street 2nd Floor Suite 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 590-2340 Facsimile: (415) 445-0908 E-mail: kat@zwillgen.com FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Paid All Settlement Claims in Daisy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida, filed on September 29, 2014, a putative class action suit against Fiesta's subsidiary, Pollo Operations, Inc. ("Pollo Operations") in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit alleged that Pollo Operations engaged in unlawful activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Sec. 227 et seq. occurring in December 2010 and January 2011. As of April 3, 2016, Pollo Operations reached a settlement with the plaintiff which resulted in dismissal of the case and has paid all settlement claims. Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. owns, operates and franchises two fast-casual restaurant brands through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Pollo Operations, Inc., and its subsidiaries, and Pollo Franchise, Inc., and Taco Cabana, Inc. and its subsidiaries. FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Rear Axle Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed an order granting summary judgment against the Plaintiffs in the case JENELLE; BARRY FORD, h/w, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-56280 (9th Cir.). Jenelle and Barry Ford appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of Ford Motor. Plaintiffs raised six California-law claims and one federal claim concerning the rear axle in their 1999 Ford Windstar minivan, which developed cracks after 12 years and 221,000 miles of use. Plaintiffs asserted two theories of injury before the district court: (1) that the axle failed prematurely, resulting in unwarranted replacement costs and (2) that Plaintiffs "would not have purchased their Windstar if FMC had disclosed that its rear axle was susceptible to metal fatigue". A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum dated June 8 is available at https://is.gd/FSkxd7 from Leagle.com. FORT WAYNE, IN: See Seeks Class Certification of Homeless Locals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith See, the Plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled KEITH SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, in its official capacity, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00105-JVB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), asks the Court certify a class defined as: All individuals residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana who are homeless or without a fixed address possessing personal property that may be left temporarily unattended and subject to the seizure and destruction policy of Defendant. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to extend any injunctive relief granted to the Plaintiff at the time the Court decides the Motion to the Certified Class as a whole. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9XewJW2I The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Myers, Esq. Lori W. Jansen, Esq. David W. Frank, Esq. Skyler Spurling-Newsome, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424-0600 Facsimile: (260) 424-0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com FOUR CORNERS: Faces "Riskin" Sued Over Spring Rewards Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Micah Riskin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc., Case No. 2016CH07630 (Ill. Ch. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons who signed up for Spring Rewards at any of the Defendants bars who had accumulated points in the Spring Rewards Program and had those points lost due to the cancellation of the Program without notice and without the ability to use points which had been accumulated to date. Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc. owns a chain of restaurant-bars located in the city of Chicago, Cook County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aron D. Robinson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON 180 W. Washington St. Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 857-9050 E-mail: Adroblaw@aol.com - and - Jeffrey A. Arman, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 182 W. Lake St. Unit 1409 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (224) 522-8689 E-mail: jeffarman@gmail.com FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Actions Filed Related to Westport Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is aware of four putative stockholder class actions that have been filed since the announcement of the merger with Westport Innovations Inc., which challenge the proposed merger. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said. On September 1, 2015, Fuel Systems, Westport Innovations Inc., an Alberta, Canada corporation ("Westport"), and Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Westport ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Company will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with the Company surviving the Merger and becoming a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Westport. Pursuant to the original terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the merger, each outstanding share of common stock of the Company, will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.129 shares of common shares of Westport, subject to certain adjustments. On March 6, 2016 the Company entered into an Amendment to the Merger Agreement. This Amendment changed the exchange ratio from 2.129 shares to a range of 3.0793 to 2.129 shares depending on the weighted average price of Westport shares as defined by the Amendment. Consummation of the merger is subject to various closing conditions. The Company designs, manufactures and supplies alternative fuel components and systems for use in the transportation, industrial and power generation industries on a global basis. The Company's components and systems control the pressure and flow of gaseous alternative fuels, such as propane and natural gas used in internal combustion engines. GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Jefferson County" Sues Over Overpriced Alum -------------------------------------------------------------- Jefferson County, Alabama, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC., Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc. and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03228 (N.D. Ala., May 11, 2016), seeks permanent enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. Plaintiff purchased liquid alum for purposes of wastewater treatment. Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive prices. Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300, 155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario. General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United States and Europe. Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler, Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals. Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road, Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig L. Lowell, Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sobczak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael N. Sobczak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gyro Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Vaughn Energy Services, Case No. 2:16-cv-00204 (S.D. Tex., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gyro Technologies, Inc. is a wellbore surveyor company servicing the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 H&O INVESTMENTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Molina" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally certifying the action captioned JUAN MOLINA, MAURICIO HERNANDEZ, CONSTANTINO AVILA, GABRIEL GUTIERREZ and WILSON HERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. H & O INVESTMENTS LLC, H & O EQUIPMENT LLC, d/b/a H & O Lawn 360, DAVID MAHLER JR., KAREN STIRLING, RANDALL GOMEZ, RICK SUMMERS and ROY H. MAUGHAN JR., Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:16-cv-00377- LMA-JCW (E.D. La.), pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs also seek an order authorizing notice to be issued to members of a class of all landscape workers, laborers and other non-management employees who worked for the Defendants at any time from January 12, 2013, to the entry of judgment in the Case so that they may be informed of the action and given a meaningful opportunity to "opt-in" to the action as the Plaintiffs by also asserting FLSA claims. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an order: -- directing the Defendants to furnish the Plaintiffs with the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of all potential collective action members; -- requiring the Defendants to post the Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form at the Defendants' shops and job sites in a location visible to all of the Defendants' employees; and -- permitting the Plaintiffs to mail the Deadline Reminder Letter to all potential plaintiffs prior to the termination of the opt-in period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vzb1WkSJ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com - and - Marco Balducci, Esq. PELTON + BALDUCCI 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2725 New Orleans, LA 70123 Telephone: (504) 708-5400 Facsimile: (504) 708-5404 E-mail: marco@pbimmigration.com HALLIBURTON ENERGY: New Plaintiffs Must File Own Suit ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint, filed April 12, 2016, in the case, MITCHELL L. McCORMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. CIV-11-1272-M (W.D. Okla.). A copy of the Court's decision dated June 8, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/LRF4Hp from Leagle.com. From the mid-1960s until 1991, defendant cleaned missile motor casings for the United States Department of Defense and its contractors on a portion of its Osage Road facility near Duncan, Oklahoma ("Site"). Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of those operations, the groundwater at the Site became contaminated with perchlorate, which has since migrated offsite and into the private water wells of numerous area residents. On October 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed the action as a purported class action. On March 3, 2015, the Court denied class certification in this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), plaintiffs move for leave to amend their complaint to add 82 additional plaintiffs (unnamed putative class members) who own property that is over the perchlorate contamination plume or its buffer area. Plaintiffs assert that the proposed amendment will not prejudice defendant in any way as defendant is aware of these individuals' property claims and has addressed these claims for other plaintiffs, and the parties have already submitted expert reports concerning these properties. Additionally, plaintiffs assert there will be no undue delay because the parties have conducted and concluded much of the core discovery central to all of the new plaintiffs' property claims and only discovery specific to the plaintiffs' property interest and supplements to expert reports will be needed over the next ten months. Plaintiffs further assert that amending the existing complaint presents the most convenient means to address all property claims as it places all of the claims in a single action. Defendant contends that by seeking to add these new plaintiffs into this case, plaintiffs are in fact asking the Court to consolidate or join these claims with the remaining claims in this case and are asking the Court to do so now rather than after a factual record is developed. Defendant asserts that because the Court has discretion to order consolidation later, there is no prejudice to plaintiffs in waiting. Defendant further contends that the claims of the new plaintiffs differ in several potentially important respects from those of the remaining plaintiffs: (1) the only three remaining property damage plaintiffs in this case are owners of three large commercial properties; whereas, the new plaintiffs are all owners of residential properties, except for one property on which a veterinarian has his office; (2) several of the new plaintiffs purchased their properties after the contamination issue was publicly announced; (3) most of the new plaintiffs did not drink well water but were on public water; whereas, most of the previous residential plaintiffs in this case were on well water; and (4) the new plaintiffs may be pursuing some additional legal theories in their case. Additionally, defendant contends that forcing it to begin to conduct discovery of the new plaintiffs immediately while at the same time preparing for the upcoming trial, instead of proceeding with discovery of the new plaintiffs in the context of a new case, prejudices defendant. Defendant, thus, contends that the new plaintiffs should be required to file their claims as a separate action. Halliburton Energy Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Carmen R Toledo -- ctoledo@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Elizabeth R Taber -- etaber@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding-HOUSTON, F Michael Stenglein -- mstenglein@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Gerald P Green -- jgreen@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, J Kevin Buster -- kbuster@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, John C Lennon -- jlennon@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green-OKC, Kim A Tran -- ktran@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green-OKC, Peter L Wheeler -- pwheeler@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, Robert L Betts -- rbetts@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green & Robert B Hurley, Jr. -- rhurley@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding. HCA HOLDINGS: $215-Mil. Settlement in Schuh Action Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- HCA Holdings, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has given final approval to the settlement in the Schuh securities class action litigation. On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement. Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively. All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The consolidated complaint alleged deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and 2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue growth rates. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Following the close of discovery, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment and to strike certain of the expert witnesses. In addition to the consolidated shareholder class action, on December 8, 2011, a federal shareholder derivative action, Sutton v. Bracken, et al., putatively initiated in the name of the Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against certain officers and present and former directors of the Company seeking monetary relief. The action alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the named officers and directors in connection with the accounting and earnings claims set forth in the shareholder class actions described above. Setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants, an additional federal derivative action, Schroeder v. Bracken, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 16, 2011, and a state derivative action, Bagot v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court on December 20, 2011. The federal derivative actions were consolidated in the Middle District of Tennessee and stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions. The state derivative action had also been stayed pending developments in the shareholder class actions, but that stay has expired. The plaintiff in the state derivative action subsequently filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013 that added additional allegations made in the shareholder class actions. On September 24, 2013, an additional state derivative action, Steinberg v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court. This action against our board of directors was consolidated with the earlier filed state derivative action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated complaint on December 4, 2013. The Company filed a motion to again stay the state derivative action pending developments in the class action, but the court did not act on the motion. On November 3, 2015, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle the Schuh shareholder class action and the Sutton, Schroeder and Bagot derivative actions. The preliminary settlement agreement provided for a resolution of all of the pending claims in the shareholder class action and the derivative suits, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants, and was contingent upon, among other things, execution of final settlement documents, successful negotiation of certain non-monetary terms, approval by the Company's Board of Directors, notification to the Schuh shareholder class, and preliminary and final approval of the settlements by the state and federal courts in Tennessee. The federal court gave preliminary approval to the shareholder class action settlement on January 13, 2016, provided for class notification, set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for April 11, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The state court in Bagot gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the derivative claims on January 28, 2016, set a hearing for final approval on April 12, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on that date. The federal derivative action will be dismissed by stipulation of the parties. The monetary terms of the settlement in the Schuh case include a payment by HCA of $215 million in return for a full release of all claims against all defendants, including the Company, its officers and directors, the underwriters and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The terms of the settlement of the derivative cases include receipt by the Company of $19 million from insurance policies covering the claims asserted in the derivative cases, certain corporate governance reforms and agreement by the Company to pay attorneys' fees in the aggregate amount of $5.5 million in return for releases of all claims against all defendants. In the fourth quarter of 2015, HCA recorded legal claim costs, net of expected insurance recoveries, of $120 million for the expected settlements of the shareholder action, the derivative cases and related costs. HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Fee Recoveries Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no oral argument date has been set in the appeal in the class action lawsuit related to Concession Fee Recoveries. In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties. No oral argument date has been set. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Challenged ------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiff has filed its opposition to Hertz's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety in the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016 and on May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed its opposition to same. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. HOBBY LOBBY STORES: "Kicic" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Kicic, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00197-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendant operates more than 600 retail stores nationwide selling arts, crafts, hobbies, home decor, Holiday, and seasonal products. Plaintiff was employed as a Co-Manager from approximately September 2014 to October 2014 at their store in Aurora, Illinois and from November 2014 to December 2015 at their store in Terre Haute, Indiana. Plaintiff is represented by: Vess A. Miller, Esq. Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel. (317) 636-6481 Fax (317) 636-2593 Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 HOIST LIFTRUCK: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Moreno, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-07601 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all accrued vacation pay upon separation of their employment. Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc. is in the business of manufacturing high capacity lift trucks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 HRG GROUP: Appeal Filed in Ludwick Class Action ----------------------------------------------- HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Dale R. Ludwick has filed an appeal an appeal from the dismissal of his class action lawsuit. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick") v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG's former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal. HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term, generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG." ICARE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Huckabee" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Michael Huckabee D.D.S., P.A.; a Texas professional association, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. iCare Credit Solutions, LLC d/b/a iCare Financial, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-01837-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. iCare Credit Solutions, LLC operates a full-service consumer financial organization in dental, medical, automotive and consumer service verticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD, LLC Suite 660, 1718 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 893-9400 Facsimile: (404) 872-3745 E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC Suite 300, 3900 East Mexico Avenue Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0678 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ICONIX BRAND: 3 Class Suits Remain Pending in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al Docket No. 1:15 - cv 06658, are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (each, a "Class Action" and, together, the "Class Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 20, 2013 to August 7, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and prospects. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter. IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending. The Company said, "On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named us and certain of our current and former officers and purported to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased our publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about our operations and business and financial results and purported to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief. On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016, again naming the same current and former officers, alleging false and misleading statements about our operations and business and financial results, and seeking the same relief. On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion is pending." JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Sheib" Class Suit in New York Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Brett Sheib, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 1:16-cv-02880 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable practices of automatically creating debit cards for inmates released from Federal prisons, placing all Releasee funds on the debit cards, then making it impossible for Releasees to fully consume all of the funds placed on those debit cards, all without an iota of consent. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a national banking association with headquarters in New York, New York, and assets of $2.6 trillion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, Northwest, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Boulevard, 5th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Fish" Class Taken Under Advisement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas entered a miscellaneous minute sheet of the issues heard before the Hon. Julie A. Robinson in the lawsuit titled STEVEN WAYNE FISH, et al. v. KRIS W. KOBACH, et al. Case No. 2:16-cv-02105-JAR- JPO (D. Kan.). Kris William Kobach is the Secretary of state of Kansas. After hearing argument of counsel, and for reasons set forth in full on the record, the Court ruled that the motion to certify class filed by Plaintiffs Steven Fish, Thomas Boynton, Donna Bucci, Douglas Hutchinson, Ralph Ortiz, and Charles Stricker is taken under advisement. The amended motion to certify class by Plaintiffs Steven Fish, Thomas Boynton, Donna Bucci, Douglas Hutchinson, Ralph Ortiz, Charles Stricker and The League of Women Voters of Kansas is also taken under advisement. The Court requests copies of depositions not previously provided. Counsel for Defendant Nick Jordan has seven calendar days (June 21, 2016) to submit additional briefing regarding the Revenue's authority to require further documentation on a renewal as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs have eight calendar days (June 29, 2016) to respond. The Court suspends the deadlines under the scheduling order. New deadlines will be set following the Court's ruling on the dispositive motions. A copy of the Miscellaneous Minute Sheet is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yex3tNHn KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Keener" Class Taken Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas entered a miscellaneous minute sheet of the issues heard before the Hon. Julie A. Robinson in the lawsuit styled CODY KEENER, et al. v. KRIS W. KOBACH, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09300-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.). Kris William Kobach is the Secretary of state of Kansas. After hearing argument of counsel, and for reasons set forth in full on the record, the Court ruled that the motion to certify class action filed by Plaintiffs Cody Keener, Alder Cromwell and Parker Bednasek is taken under advisement. The Court requests copies of depositions not previously provided. The Court suspends the deadlines under the scheduling order. New deadlines will be set following the Court's ruling on the dispositive motions. A copy of the Miscellaneous Minute Sheet is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gKiRuTbL KEARNES PAINTING: "Miller" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Fredrick Miller, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kearnes Painting Corp. d/b/a AK Painting and Arthur Kearnes, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00505-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2016), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory and equitable relief for failure to pay overtime compensation and maintain wage and hour records under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Kearnes is a painting company with offices in Columbus, Ohio, from which it services clients throughout the greater Columbus area. Plaintiff worked as a painter for the Defendants. Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Kmetz, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: ekmetz@msdlegal.com abiller@msdlegal.com MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- Mattson Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that a settlement has been reached in the Merger-related class action lawsuit. On December 14, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Beijing E- town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"), and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), captioned Sally Mogle v. Mattson Technology, Case No. 11807 (Del. Ch.). On December 22, 2015, a second putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Philip Durgin v. Kannappan, Case No. 11837 (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Definitive Merger Agreement, dated December 1, 2015, by and among Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub ("Merger Agreement"), and that Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 12, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Mary Salinas v. Mattson Technology, Case No. RG16799807. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Definitive Merger Agreement, and that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction and unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging, among other things, that Mattson's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, and that Mattson, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 22, 2016, a second putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Darrell Brown v. Mattson Technology, Case No. RG16804802. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, and that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 18, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Board, captioned Talbert v. Mattson Technology, No. 8:16-cv-00811-LHK. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson and Mattson's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially incomplete and misleading statements and/or omitting material information from the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on February 17, 2016. The complaint seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction, unspecified damages, certain other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 14, 2016, Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the actions, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle to a settlement of these actions. As explained in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors and Merger Sub have agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the expense, disruption, and distraction of further litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a mandatory non-opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all record and beneficial owners of the Company's common stock (excluding defendants, their subsidiary companies, affiliates, assigns, and members of their immediate families) during the period beginning on September 15, 2015, through the effective date of the consummation of the merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and each of them and a release of certain claims relating to the merger as set forth in the MOU. The claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the California Superior Court in the County of Alameda. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. MAXLINEAR INC: Merger Litigation Dismissed ------------------------------------------ Maxlinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has entered an order vacating the briefing schedule for plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and providing that dismissal of the consolidated action related to the Entropic Communications Merger was final. Between February 9, 2015 and February 18, 2015, eleven stockholder class action complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632- VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP (filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A . No. 10661-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No. 10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015)) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Court, on behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders alleging that the board of directors of Entropic breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the then-proposed acquisition of Entropic by the Company and that the Company aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs in the complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction. On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc. Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP , or the Consolidated Action. On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of the Delaware actions. As part of the proposed settlement, on April 27, 2015, Entropic filed a Form 8-K containing supplemental disclosures in connection with the acquisition. On April 30, 2015, Entropic's stockholders voted to approve the acquisition, which closed later that same day. The parties to the Consolidation Action subsequently agreed not to proceed with the settlement and, instead, on February 23, 2016, entered into a stipulation and proposed order dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' counsel to make an application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Court, which the Court entered on February 25, 2016. After negotiations, the Company agreed to pay fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $150,000. On March 18, 2016, the Court entered an order vacating the briefing schedule for plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and providing that dismissal of the Consolidated Action was final. MAYFIELD GARDENS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ramon Espinoza Perez, Jose Espinoza Perez, and Fortino Cruz Landa on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Mayfield Gardens, Inc. and Harry J. Hoplamazian and Veronica Hoplamazian, Case No. 160600247 (Penn. Cmmw., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants operate a design company located in 960 S Hunt Rd, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Liz MariaChacko, Esq. Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq. FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS 699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 733-0878 E-mail: lchacko@friendsfw.org sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org MDL 2159: Hearing on Bid to Decertify "Ellison" Moved to Aug. 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Extend Deadline to File Opposition and Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Decertify: -- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Decertify, that was due to be filed June 10, 2016, should instead be filed two weeks after the deposition of Defendant's designated corporate representative as ordered by Magistrate Judge Corley; -- Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition, due to be filed on June 20, 2016, should instead be filed 10 days after Plaintiffs' Opposition is filed; and -- The hearing date for Defendant's Motion, currently set for July 8, at 10:00 a.m., should be continued to August 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's June 8, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/8m27lL from Leagle.com. MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Reserves Decision on Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court held a final hearing to consider approval of the settlement in the case, SERR v. THE MEDICINES COMPANY et al., 2:14-cv-01149 (D.N.J.). Following the hearing, Judge Claire C. Cecchi reserved her decision on the matter. The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013 through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period. On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because we and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested the efficacy and safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made throughout the class period about the trials were misleading because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs." "On November 17, 2014, we and certain of our current and former officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January 16, 2015. Briefing is now complete. "On July 16, 2015, the court heard oral argument on the motion, which remains under consideration by the court. On February 12, 2016, the parties executed a stipulation for a proposed class settlement, subject to court approval. On February 25, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final approval hearing for June 7, 2016." MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Valera, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Law Office of S. Michael Musa-Obregon, P.C. d/b/a Musa-Obregon & Associates and Shauky Michael Musa-Obregon, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02907 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a law firm located at 55-21 69th St 2nd Flr Maspeth, NY 11378. Andrea Valera is a pro se plaintiff. MP CALIFORNIA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Hernandez, as an individual, Giovanni Hernandez, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. MP California, a California Corporation, MP Nexlevel, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, MP Nexlevel of California, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03015 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, straight time wages, meal and rest period premiums, reimbursement expenses, restitution and statutory penalties for violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and Wage Orders and the Fair Labor Standards Act. MP Nexlevel LLC is a Minnesota Limited Liability Corporation where Jose Hernandez worked for Defendants as a Foreman while Giovanni Hernandez worked as a groundsman. Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 NANOSPHERE INC: Faces "Al-Mullah" Suit Over Sale to Luminex ----------------------------------------------------------- Fahd Al-Mullah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nanosphere, Inc., Erik Holmlin, Gene Cartwright, Jeff Randall, Kristopher Wood, Michael McGarrity, Michael J. Ward, Luminex Corporation, and Commodore Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 2016CH07607 (Ill. Ch. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all holders of common stock of Nanosphere, Inc., against the Company's Board of Directors, Luminex Corporation, and Commodore Acquisition, Inc., alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed acquisition of all outstanding Company shares by Luminex for $1.70 per share in cash for an aggregate value of approximately $77 million. Nanosphere, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets molecular diagnostic tests for infectious diseases and associated drug resistance markers for earlier disease detection, optimal patient treatment and improved healthcare economics. Luminex Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells proprietary biological testing technologies and products for the diagnostics, pharmaceutical, and life sciences industries worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Wishnev" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Sanford Wishnev v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv- 03797-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2016, Plaintiff Sanford Wishnev is a California resident, who purchased four life insurance policies from the Defendant. He filed the lawsuit asserting that the Defendant violated California's usury law by charging him compound interest on life insurance policy loans, without the Plaintiff's written agreement that interest would be compounded. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in state courts as a putative class action on behalf of "all California persons as to whom Northwestern Mutual's records show that they have been charged compound interest by Northwestern Mutual on a life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years." The appellate case is captioned as Sanford Wishnev v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Case No. 16-16037, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Robert M. Bramson, Esq. Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Esq. BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER &BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com The Defendant-Appellant is represented by: Matthew J. Adler, Esq. Marshall Baker, Esq. Alan Jay Lazarus, Esq. Michael J. Stortz, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 E-mail: Matthew.Adler@dbr.com Marshall.Baker@dbr.com Alan.Lazarus@dbr.com Michael.Stortz@dbr.com - and - Stephen C. Baker, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 1 Logan Square 18th & Cherry Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Telephone: (215) 988-2769 E-mail: Stephen.Baker@dbr.com ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Class Action Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- On Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the "Woo" class action lawsuit. On December 14, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in state court in Delaware against the Company, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., an ON Semiconductor subsidiary ("Merger Sub"), Fairchild and certain directors of Fairchild with respect to the merger agreement entered into between our Merger Sub and Fairchild in November 2015, by which the Company commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Fairchild. The lawsuit alleges breach of duty by the individual defendants and aiding and abetting by the Company and the Merger Sub and has been docketed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("District Court") as Woo v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al, Case # 11798VCL. In March 2016, the plaintiff amended the complaint to allege that Fairchild's failure to accept the proposal from a third party constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and that certain disclosures filed on Form 14D-9 were misleading or inaccurate. As relief, the amended complaint continues to seek, among other things, an injunction against the tender offer and the merger that are part of the Fairchild Transaction, an accounting for damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the claim against it is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and the Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of this matter will be favorable for it. PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Action Trial to Begin October 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit is currently set for trial beginning October 3, 2016. On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively, "Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company, Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth, P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that Pacific Continental Bank is jointly and severally liable for materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The current version of the complaint seeks $100 million in damages from all defendants. The matter is currently set for trial beginning October 3, 2016. PACIFIC PREMIER: Dismissal of "Parshall" Suit Under Review ---------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court is still in the process of considering and addressing Paul Parshall's request for dismissal of his lawsuit. The Company said, "On January 31, 2016, the Company completed its acquisition of Security California Bancorp ("SCAF") whereby we acquired $714 million in total assets, $456 million in loans and $637 million in total deposits. Under the terms of the merger agreement, each share of Security common stock was converted into the right to receive 0.9629 shares of the Corporation's common stock. The value of the total deal consideration was $120 million, which includes $788,000 of aggregate cash consideration to the holders of SCAF stock options and the issuance of 5,815,051 shares of the Corporation's common stock, valued at $119.4 million based on a closing stock price of $20.53 per share on January 29, 2016." "The Corporation was named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought in California state court (Riverside County) entitled, Parshall v. Security California Bancorp, et al. This lawsuit was brought by Paul Parshall, a shareholder of SCAF, parent corporation of Security Bank of California. The lawsuit challenged the share price and other financial benefits to shareholders in the Company's acquisition of SCAF, and was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of similarly-situated SCAF shareholders. No motion to certify a class action was filed. On March 1, 2016, Mr. Parshall filed paperwork with the court seeking to dismiss the litigation without prejudice. As of the date of this filing, the court is still in the process of considering and addressing Mr. Parshall's request for dismissal." PERMIAN SAND: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Jason Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Permian Sand Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00187-PRM (W.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Permian Sand provides oilfield services to land drilling operations throughout the United States, including Texas and New Mexico where Johnston worked as a Sand Coordinator. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: 713-751-0025 Fax: 713-751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PERSONAL PHYSICIANS: "Philip" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Alyson Philip, Plaintiff, v. Personal Physicians Care, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80920-RLR (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendant owns and/or operates a medical practice and maintains a corporate office in Delray Beach, Florida where the Plaintiff was employed. Philip claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1 North Palm Beach , FL 33408 Telephone: (954) 921-9994 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 Email: dcard@consumerlaworg.com - and - Chad T. Van Horn, Esq. VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A. 330 N. Andrews Ave. Suite 450 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Main: (954) 765-3166 Fax: (954) 756-7103 Email: Chad@cvhlawgroup.com PETCO ANIMAL: "Feist" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jacklyn Feist, Angelica Zimmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2016-00015093-CU-NP-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01369-H-DHB to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. is a pet retailer in the United States, with corporate offices in San Diego and San Antonio, that sells pets as well as pet products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@glancylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Marissa L. Lyftogt, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1050 San Diego, CA 92101-3532 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 E-mail: mlyftogt@wilsonturnerkosmo.com PINNACLE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morgan" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- James Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01363- JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC operates a credit reporting agency located at 7900 MN-7, Minneapolis, MN 55426. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Michael Loker KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com PIZZERIAS LLC: "Jimenez" Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Jimenez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PIZZERIAS, LLC, Defendant., Case No. 1:16- cv-22035-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover unreimbursed expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Defendant operates 31 Papa John's franchise pizzerias in Florida where Jimenez was employed as a delivery driver at its Miami, Florida store. He uses his own vehicle to deliver for the Plaintiff and gets paid per delivery. He claims that because of the business-related expenses, his take home pay falls below mandatory minimum wage rate. Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL MCINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Alan D. Danz, Esq. DANZ & KRONENGOLD, P.L. 10620 Griffin Road, Suite 201 Cooper City, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 530-9245 Facsimile: (954) 616-5738 Email: danz@danzlaw.net POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 17, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger was filed by a purported PowerSecure stockholder on behalf of all PowerSecure stockholders in the General Court of Justice of the Superior Court Division of Wake County, North Carolina. The lawsuit names as defendants PowerSecure, its directors, Southern Company and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges that the PowerSecure directors breached their fiduciary duties to PowerSecure stockholders by engaging in a flawed process to sell PowerSecure, by agreeing to sell PowerSecure for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the entity defendants aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, an accounting for damages and attorneys' fees. The defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit. "The ultimate outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the litigation is at a very early stage. Other than an immaterial amount for litigation costs, we have not recognized any expense for this matter as we do not believe, based upon current information, that a loss relating to this matter is probable, or that an estimate of a range of potential loss relating to this matter, can reasonably be made," the Company said. POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a securities calss action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014, two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014. The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants during the class period violated federal securities laws and seeks damages in an unspecified amount." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 26, 2015, which the court granted on September 15, 2015, with leave for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, with similar allegations over the same class period. On November 23, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the briefing on that motion concluded on February 5, 2016. We cannot provide any assurance as to when the court will rule on our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint or whether our motion will be granted, and even if granted whether the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice or appealed." RUCKUS WIRELESS: "Hussey" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------- Miguel Hussey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Stallion Merger Sub Inc., Selina Y. Lo, Seamus Hennessy, Gaurav Garg, Mohan Gyani, Georges Antoun, Richard Lynch, Stewart Grierson and Barton Burstein, Defendants., Case No. 3:16-cv-02991 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2016), seeks compensatory damages with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney, expert and witness fees and other costs, equitable and/or injunctive and such other and further relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ruckus is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. It delivers wireless services for indoor and outdoor environments for government and small business customers worldwide. Brocade provides networking hardware, software and services, including Storage Area Networking solutions and Internet Protocol Networking solutions for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes. Ruckus and Brocade announced a merger under which Ruckus would be acquired by Brocade. Ruckus's officers and directors will allegedly receive cash payments for currently vested and unvested stock options, performance shares and restricted stock, while shareholders will be forced to take un-collared parent stock for about half the per share consideration they will receive for their Ruckus shares. Selina Y. Lo, Seamus Hennessy, Gaurav Garg, Mohan Gyani, Georges Antoun, Richard Lynch, Stewart Grierson and Barton Burstein are members of the board of directors of Ruckus. Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Wissbroecker (243867) Edward M. Gergosian (105679) ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) Email: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com egergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Shawn E. Fields, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/230-0063 Fax: 619/255-1856 - and - W. SCOTT HOLLEMAN JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212/802-1486 Fax: 212/602-1592 SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Barouk Maleh a/k/a Benny Maleh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No.: 1:16-cv-02883 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Selip & Stylianou, LLP operates a law firm located at 199 Crossways Park Dr, Woodbury, NY 11797. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com SIERRA TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Sierra Transport, Inc. The case is captioned Ernesto Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Transport, Inc., Case No. BCV-16-101267 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016). Sierra Transport, Inc. operates a petroleum transport business in Kansas City Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court was slated to hold a hearing for June 13, 2016, to consider final approval of the settlement in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv- 00433-LDG-CWH). This putative consolidated class action raises substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The complaints further allege that during the putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Company said, "On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On March 26, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between the parties. On October 27, 2015, we reached a $7 million settlement in principle with the lead plaintiff (which involved our insurance carrier, as the reimbursing party in full), subject to preliminary and final court approval. We have included this settlement amount, along with $0.2 million of reimbursable legal expenses for this matter, on our accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016 within "other receivables" and "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities." On January 26, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final approval of the settlement for June 13, 2016." SUTTER WEST: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernadette Padilla, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Sutter West Bay Hospitals, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CV538977 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Sutter West Bay Hospitals is a health care complex that offers acute and specialty care, including obstetrics and gynecology, cardiovascular services, pediatrics, neurosciences, orthopedics, and organ transplantation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551- 1232 E-mail: deblouw@bamlawca.com TAYLOR SAFETY: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Jose Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Taylor Safety Consulting, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00198 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages, attorney fees and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Taylor Safety is in the business of providing safety personnel offering safety services to operators and other oil field services companies where Plaintiff worked as a safety consultant. He typically worked twelve hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks at a time without overtime. The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com THREE SONS: "Serrano-Mendiola" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Serrano-Mendiola, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Three Sons Restaurant, Inc. and Saban Dzabiri, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-05908 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover all minimum wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Municipal Code of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Three Sons Restaurant is located at 6200 South Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois where Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook. Mendiola claims to be denied overtime pay and to have worked through meal breaks. Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: 312-800-1017 Email: ralicea@yourclg.com TIMCO SERVICES: "Marshall" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Milton Marshall, Allen Goforth and Michael Baugher, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Timco Services, Llc, Frank's International, NV and Frank's International, LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00587-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Timco is an oilfield service company where Milton Marshal, Allen Goforth, and Michael Baugher worked as dispatchers. They claim to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College St., Suite 1030 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: 903-630-7154 Fax: 903-630-7173 Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Darren Grant, Esq. GRANT & FLANERY, P.C. 216 W. Erwin Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: 903-596-8080 Fax: 903-596-8086 Email: Darren@GFTexas.com TIME WARNER CABLE: Settlement in "Gillings" Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EVE NERCIA GILLINGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 10-5565-AG (RNBx)(C.D. Cal.), District Judge Andrew J. Guilford granted final approval of the parties' Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Class Counsel are awarded $375,000 for attorneys' fees, and $13,895.73 for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses. The enhancement awards for the Class Representatives in the amount of $5,000 each is approved. Payment for class administration services to Settlement Services, Inc. in the amount of their charges for administering this matter are approved up to the maximum amount of $40,000. A copy of the Court's Judgment dated June 8, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/0V7OOk from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Eve Nercia Gillings et al. are represented by Howard Scott Leviant, BERNS WEISS LLP, Dennis Frank Moss, Dennis Moss Law Offices & Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp.. Defendants Time Warner Cable LLC et al. are represented by: Joseph Scott Carr, Esq. Joseph W Ozmer, II, Esq. Michael D Kabat, Esq. Nathan D Chapman, Esq. Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Tel: (470) 447-0604 E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com jozmer@kcozlaw.com mkabat@kcozlaw.com nchapman@kcozlaw.com - and - Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 613-7050 - and - Joseph D Wargo, Esq. Wargo & French LLP 999 Peachtree Street NE, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: jwargo@wargofrench.com TOYODA GOSEI: Landers Sues Over Brake Hoses Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------- Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., dba Landers Toyota, Empire Nissan Of Santa Rosa, LLC, V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Lee Pontiac- Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Panama City Automotive Group, Inc. dba John Lee Nissan, Mcgrath Automotive Group, Inc., Green Team Of Clay Center Inc., Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. dba Lee Toyota Of Topsham, Lee Oldsmobilecadillac, Inc. dba Lee Honda, , Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., dba Commonwealth Volkswagen, Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. dba Hodges Subaru, Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., Superstore Automotive, Inc., Cannon Nissan Of Jackson, LLC, Hammett Motor Company, Inc., John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC, Ancona Enterprise, Inc. dba Frank Ancona Honda, Landers McLarty Lee's Summit MO, LLC dba Lee's Summit Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram And dba Lee's Summit Nissan, Archer-Perdue, Inc., dba Archerperdue Suzuki, Table Rock Automotive, Inc., dba Todd Archer Hyundai, Bill Pearce Honda, Reno Dodge Sales, Inc. dba Don Weir's Reno Dodge, Pitre, Inc., dba Pitre Buick GMC, Hartley Buick Gmc Truck, Inc., Westfield Dodge City, Inc., John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Capitol Dealerships, Inc., dba Capitol Toyota, Landers Mclarty Fayetteville Tn, LLC, Central Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, dba Salt Lake Valley Buick Gmc, Stranger Investments dba Stephen Wade Toyota, Apex Motor Corporation, Shearer Automotive Enterprises III, Inc. Ramey Motors, Inc. Thornhill Superstore, Inc., dba Thornhill GM Superstore and Dave Heather Corporation, dba Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru, on Behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda Gosei North America Corporation, TG Kentucky, LLC and TG Fluid Systems USA Corporation, Defendants, 2:16-cv-12046-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., June 6, 2016), asserts unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for automotive brake hoses. Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com ablum@manteselaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Email: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Phillip Duncan, Esq. Richard Quintus, Esq. DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 Email: phillip@duncanfirm.com richard@duncanfirm.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net - and - Dewitt Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Email: dml@lovelacelaw.com alex@lovelacelaw.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, P.C. 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, Tennessee 37205 Telephone: (615) 515-3393 Email: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Gregory Johnson, Esq. G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC 6688 145th Street West, Apple Valley, MN 55124 Telephone: (952) 930-2485 Email: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Sued Over Fiduciary Duty Breach --------------------------------------------------- Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Eddy Hartenstein, Justin Dearborn, David Dibble, Ellen Taus, Renetta Mccann, Philip Franklin, Richard Reck, Carol Crenshaw, Donald Tang, Patrick Soonshiong, and Nant Capital, LLC, and Tribune Publishing Company, Case No. 12416 (Del. Ch. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Tribune Publishing Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with Tribune's irresponsible defensive and dilutive tactics in response to overtures from Gannett Company. Tribune Publishing Company is a print media conglomerate in the United States, and is the publisher of, among others, the Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Sun Sentinel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Mary S. Thomas, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com mthomas@gelaw.com UGI CORPORATION: Appeal by Direct Customers Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by direct customers filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is still pending. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is still pending. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UNITED STATES: USDA Must Deposit $95,000 to Black Farmers Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMS on May 23, 2016, submitted to the United States District Court, District of Columbia, a letter containing its "final invoice and the corresponding back up for the Track A and Track B Neutral services provided in implementing the Settlement Agreement." Letter from Stacey Harrison, General Manager of JAMS, to the Honorable Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Court (May 23, 2016) (on file with the Court). The invoice documents expenses in the amount of $95,215.00. This letter follows the Court's Order of August 27, 2013, which amended Section V.E.13 of the Settlement Agreement in the case, In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, Misc. No. 08-0511 (PLF), to include the following language: "[USDA] shall set aside . . . the estimated $200,000 in funding authorized for the payment of the Track A and B Neutrals for the completion of their final duties under the Settlement agreement . . . . [USDA] shall have no obligation to transfer this estimated $200,000 until the Track A and Track B Neutrals submit to the Court a final invoice setting forth their final Implementation Costs, which costs shall not exceed $200,000. Any such invoices(s) by the Track A and Track B Neutrals shall be submitted to the Court, and copies provided to the Secretary and Class Counsel, within 12 months of the date of the Court's Order pursuant to Section IV.H of the Settlement Agreement approving the distribution of funds pursuant to the Preliminary Final Accounting submitted by the Claims Administrator. Within twenty (20) days of the Court's Order approving the final invoice(s) for the Track A and Track B Neutrals, [USDA] shall deposit the payment amounts(s) set forth in the Track and Track B Neutrals' final invoices(s) into the Designated Account. The Parties agree that the Secretary shall pay the amounts set forth in the Track A and Track B Neutral's invoices up to a total of $200,000 See Order at 2 [Dkt. 381] (emphasis added). On March 31, 2016, the Court issued a second Order, Dkt. 457, which approved of class counsel's unopposed motion to replace the words "within 12 months" in Section V.E.13 with the words "within 36 months." See Order at 3-4 [Dkt. 457]." In a June 8 Order, District Judge Paul L. Friedman gave the Defendant 20 days from the date of this Order to deposit $95,215.00 into the In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation QSF Account at SunTrust Bank. These funds shall be distributed by the Claims Administrator in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The named defendants in the case are THOMAS J. VILSACK, Defendant, Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; LILLIE M. WINGARD, Defendant, Pro Se; and ROBERT E. WALKER, Defendant, Pro Se. Information on the case is available at https://www.blackfarmercase.com/ UNO RESTAURANTS: "Osman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Niaz Osman, Ieba Romeo, and Casey La Vres, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Uno Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 509456/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, and other damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Uno Restaurants, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq. FIT APELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 VALERO REFINING: Wulfe Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Wulfe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled David Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company - CA, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-05971-MWF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as David Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company - CA, et al., Case No. 16-5582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Peter M. Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-0109 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com - and - Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON One Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Valero Services, Inc., is represented by: Paul Berkowitz, Esq. Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 E-mail: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Jamal Curtis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Vitel Communications LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-01815 (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vitel is into cable installation in DeKalb County where Plaintiff worked as a cable installer. Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com WILMINGTON, DE: Appeal Filed in "Wright" Civil Rights Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jayvon Wright, et al. v. City of Wilmington, Case No. 1-13-cv-01966, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 2, 2013, the federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the city of Wilmington over what court papers describe as a years-long unconstitutional police department policy of stop, frisk and imprison. The appellate case is captioned as Jayvon Wright, et al. v. City of Wilmington, Case No. 16-2722, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Stephen P. Norman, Esq. THE NORMAN LAW FIRM 30838 Vines Creek Road Dagsboro, DE 19939 Telephone: (302) 537-3788 The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: C. Malcolm Cochran, IV Christine Dealy Haynes, Esq. Travis S. Hunter, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 North King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 498-7506 E-mail: cochran@rlf.com haynes@rlf.com hunter@rlf.com WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Luca" Suit Over Undisclosed Fees ---------------------------------------------------- Thomas Luca Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC and Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00746-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 6, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, actual damages and/or treble damages, attorney fees, filling fees and costs of suit and such other relief. Defendants charge consumers a daily mandatory resort fee which was not included in the terms and conditions set forth by their website when booking a room. Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch R. Bruce Carlson Jamisen A. Etzel Kevin Abramowicz CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Erin Green Comite SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com ZILLOW INC: Appeals Cal. State Court Ruling in "Freeman" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01843-JLS- DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2016, Zillow Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial date is scheduled for August 2016 in a class action appeal. The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court, Central District of California, with the caption Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleges, among other things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We filed our answer to the second amended complaint on June 16, 2015. "On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. A hearing was held on February 5, 2016 regarding the motion. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 11, 2016, we filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal the order granting class certification. The trial date is scheduled for August 2016. "We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount as of March 31, 2016 related to liabilities that may result from this class action lawsuit. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of amounts accrued may be incurred; however, any additional possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time." The appellate case is captioned as Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc., Case No. 16-55817, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 E-mail: mark@geragos.com meiselas@geragos.com - and - Nicole Corey Prado, Esq. SAMINI SCHEINBERG PC 949 South Coast Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 724-0900 E-mail: nprado@saminilaw.com - and - Bobby Samini, Esq. SAMINI SCHEINBERG, PC 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 724-0900 E-mail: bsamini@saminilaw.com The Defendant-Appellant is represented by: Amanda Kate Bonn, Esq. Davida Brook, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: abonn@SusmanGodfrey.com dbrook@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Brooke Ashley May Taylor, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 373-7383 E-mail: btaylor@susmangodfrey.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *