/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 125 Headlines A123 SYSTEMS: Dempsey Fails in Bid to Revive Securities Suit ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Echavarria Suit ADJUSTABLE CLAMP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ADVOCATE HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 3 to Respond to "Vazquez" Suit AIRBNB: Monroe County Mulls Rental Tax Class Action ALBANY, NY: Residents Call for Town to Address Water Crisis ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Medina Wage & Hour Suit Won't Proceed as Class ART.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Knapp" AMERICAN BAR: Dismissal of Suit Over Admission Test Affirmed AUSTRALIA: Failed Equine Flu Class Action Hits Maurice Blackburn BANK OF NEW YORK: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Depositary Receipts BELLAIRE FAMILY: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit BERNARD FREUNDEL: Sanford Appointed as Interim Class Counsel BET365: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Free Bet" Offer BLU SUSHI: Settlement Agreement in "Mitchell" Suit Approved CALIFORNIA: Restrictions on Immigrant Detainee Phone Use Eased CANADA: Disabled Veterans Head Back to Court in Benefits Case CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Evidentiary Requirement Issue CARFAX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Subscription Pricing Model CARIS LIFE: Must Pay $16MM Damages to Stock Option Holders CBL & ASSOCIATES: Sued in Ten. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports CBS RADIO: Class Certification Sought in "Bonin" Suit CC&D LLC: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages CELAPURE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Transmissions CELLCEUTIX CORP: Court Junks "Zagami" Suit CHIPOTLE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Denver CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss on July 18 CPI CARD: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in "Bordenet" Suit Denied CUYAHOGA, OH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Butterfield" Suit Says DELAWARE: Ali Seeks Class Status of Suit v. Dept. of Corrections DUPONT: PFOA Class Action Litigation Ongoing in Ohio ERIN ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending FANDUEL: Mulls Merger with Draftkings Amid Class Actions FEDEX GROUND: Court Awards $37.2MM Attorney's Fees in "Alexander" FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Remands "Taylor" to Trial Court FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought FLOWERS FOODS: "Rosinbaum" Transferred to E.D.N.C. FOUR M FRANCHISING: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FRESNO, CA: Possible Source of Tainted Tap Water Identified GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today GEORGIA: Dismissal of "McConnell" Suit v. Labor Dept Affirmed GRIMES COUNTY, TX: Wallace Pack Unit Inmates' Class Action OK'd GROUP O: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Creal" GS ENGINEERING: Korean Investors File Class Action HALLIBURTON CO: New Plaintiffs Can't Join Perchlorate Suit HORNBLOWER NEW YORK: Class Action Over Withheld Tips Can Proceed INT'L BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Vacation Pay Case INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Seeks Dismissal of Customer Suit in Conn. JBG EDUCATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Travel Expenses JPMORGAN CHASE: "Nypl" Case Consolidated with Forex Case JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown Appeals Order Approving $150-Mil. Accord LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employee Plan Premiums LIBERTY POWER: BLT Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Complaint LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE: Chambers Class Certification Bid Nixed LIFELOCK INC: Final Approval Hearing Today on Ebarle Settlement LIFELOCK INC: Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Case Under Advisement LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set by Ninth Circuit LONG BEACH, CA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marquez" Suit Says LYFT INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice MARKETSOURCE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MASSAGE ENVY: Faces New Class Action Over Prepaid Massages MCCLINTON ENERGY: Appeal to 5th Circuit Filed in "Dismuke" Suit MCDONALD'S CORP: July 29 ADA Case Prelim. Status Conference Set MDL 2284: Court Enjoins Rosses' Michigan State Suit MEDPARTNERS: $310MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval NAVY FEDERAL: Aug. 12 Hearing on Renewed Settlement Approval Bid NESCO SERVICE: Class Certification Bid in "St. John" Suit Denied NETFLIX: Two Workers Mull Class Action Over Employment Status NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif. NEW SEABURY: Membership Deadline Pushed Back Amid Class Action NEW YORK: Assistant State AG Disputes Court Backlog Claims OZ MINERALS: Settles Merger Class Action for $24 Million PHARMACARE US: Spokeo Ruling Impacts Class Certification Decision PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Proposed Merger POLYCOM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action PORSCHE CARS: Obtains Favorable Ruling on Authorization Motion PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: "Hsu" Case Still Pending in C.D. Calif. QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal Claims REAL TIME: Manrique Class Certification Terminated RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over "This Land" Song RICK'S FRONT DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Call Fee Cut Imminent Amid Class Suit RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Oct. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Mojica" Suit SINGING RIVER: Court Stays Lowe's Claims vs KPMG STATE FARM: Summary Judgment in Freedom Medical Case Affirmed SYNGENTA: February Trial Set in Midwest Corn Farmers' Suit TARGA RESOURCES: TRC-TRP Merger Case Dismissed TEXAS: Green Seeks Class Certification of Suit v. Justice Dept TOTAL CARD: Bid to Dismiss "Genova" Suit Granted TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fox News Join Drive to Obtain Deposition Access UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wage UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says UNITED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims UNITED ONLINE: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action UNITED STATES STEEL: Sued Over Benzene Products Exposure UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit Denied UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Fisher" Suit Over PACER Fees US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Uses Background Report, Suit Claims VOLKSWAGEN AG: Former CEO Faces Probe Over Emissions Scandal VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: To Deliver Electric Cars Amid Emissions Suit WEATHERBY INC: $500,000 Class Action Settlement in "Fiant" Okayed WISH-I-AH SKILLED: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Licon" Affirmed YALCIN INC: "Yanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages YM KNIT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ZAFGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bessler" Case Pending * Chicago Business Leaders Balk at Burke's New Arbitration Rules * Successful Securities Class Action Law Firms Picked Right Cases ********* A123 SYSTEMS: Dempsey Fails in Bid to Revive Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Laura Taylor Swain reinstated the judgment dismissing the amended complaint and reclosed the case captioned RICHARD DEMPSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAVID P. VIEAU, et al., Defendants, No. 13 CV 6883- LTS (S.D.N.Y.). In the putative class action, Richard Dempsey alleged that the defendants, executives of A123 Systems, Inc., violated the federal securities laws by making material misstatements or omissions relating to A123's production of electric car batteries for a car manufacturer, Fisker Automotive, Inc. Dempsey alleged that A123 mislead investors as to (1) the manufacture and testing of A123's batteries, which were ultimately determined to be defective; and (2) the financial health of Fisker and its related ability to purchase and pay for A123's batteries. On September 8, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, and ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. On October 6, 2015, Dempsey commenced the instant motion seeking relief from the court's judgment to reopen the case, and leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Swain explained that plaintiffs are entitled to an opportunity to move for leave to amend their complaint in an attempt to cure the defects in the amended complaint, which was dismissed by the court for failure to state a claim. Thus, the judge granted Dempsey's motion to modify the judgment to the extent of permitting Dempsey's instant motion for leave to amend the amended complaint. Judge Swain, however, found that the proposed second amended complaint does not cure any of the pleading defects previously identified by the court. Dempsey's motion for leave to amend was denied on the basis of futility. A full-text copy of Judge Swain's June 15, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/PvsPF4 from Leagle.com. Huang YiFeng, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Ronen Sarraf -- ronen@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile, LLP & David Avi Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Hormuz Irani, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Corey D. Holzer -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, Michael Gerard Capeci -- mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Richard A. Dempsey, Plaintiff, represented by Corey D. Holzer, pro hac vice, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, Michael Gerard Capeci, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Stanley Levin, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Jeffrey Shuhaiber, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole -- nespole@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Simon Gima, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Frank Rubin, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. David P. Vieau, David J. Prystash, Jason M. Forcier, John R. Granara III, Defendants, represented by James Ellis Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Jeff G. Hammel -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins. ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Court Stays Echavarria Suit ----------------------------------------------- Hon. Christina A. Snyder entered order in the lawsuit styled MONICA ECHAVARRIA, the Plaintiff, v. ADIR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CV15-9172-CAS(KSx) (C.D. Cal), removing the Action from the Active List of Cases, Pursuant to a Stay in the Action. The Court has approved a stay in this matter on June 13, 2016. The Court thus removes this action from its active caseload until further application by the parties or Court order. The Court directs counsel to file a joint report detailing the status of the case within 60 days and every quarter thereafter until the action has been reactivated on this Court's active caseload or a stipulation for dismissal is filed. The Court retains full jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. All dates in this action are vacated and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and to be Appointed Class Counsel is moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eyx6AOtT ADJUSTABLE CLAMP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Rojas, and Jeremias Fabian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Adjustable Clamp Company d/b/a Pony Tools Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-cv-06044 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' notice of termination to employees. Adjustable Clamp Company manufactures clamping products and clamp- related tools for use in home building, woodworking, metalworking, and heavy industrial projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 E-mail: info@caffarelli.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 3 to Respond to "Vazquez" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit captioned Christy Vazquez, Plaintiff, v. Advocate Health Care Network, an Illinois Non-profit Corporation, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill.), granting an Agreed motion for extension of time to and including August 3, 2016, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' class action complaint and stay Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RCid9x3D AIRBNB: Monroe County Mulls Rental Tax Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Timothy O'Hara, writing for keysnews.com, reports that the Monroe County Commission agreed on June 15 to go after the company that operates the Internet transient rental booking site AirBnB.com for hotel sales taxes and to make sure the company is following the county's strict transient rental regulations. The commission gave County Attorney Bob Shillinger authorization to work with a private law firm and potentially other counties on a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb. Also, Mr. Shillinger has the authority to try and work out a settlement agreement for the taxes and to set up rules to make sure AirBnB and the homeowners that rent through the company's website are following county regulations regarding transient rentals. A representative from AirBnB, Brian Bautista, attended the June 15 meeting to lobby the commission to approve a "voluntary (tax) collection agreement" the company has proposed to various state tax collector's offices across Florida, including the one in Monroe County. Mr. Batista said AirBnB is "committed to being a positive partner," with Monroe County and would be willing to "work through the county's concerns" and "solve the needs and concerns." The agreement would require the group to pay lump sums of taxes but not provide any occupancy information or what rentals are actually legal. The commission did not appear interested in the agreement. The lack of information, refusal to pay back taxes and the potential to violate local transient rental laws has the tax collector and the county attorney rejecting the agreement. On June 15, Mr. Batista would not commit to have his company do more to regulate people advertising properties on AirBnB to make sure they are licensed and legal. "They are circumventing what rules we have in place," County Commissioner George Neugent said. County Mayor Heather Carruthers told Mr. Bautista that the issues in the Keys are much different from other parts of the state and the country. Monroe County has a moratorium on new transient rental units, the county has limits on how many transient rentals can occur because of hurricane evacuation timelines and the county has strict requirements on the issuance of transient rental licenses, Ms. Carruthers said. This is not the first time Monroe County led a class action suit against online travel companies. A 2010 class action lawsuit filed by 33 Florida counties against online travel booking sites Priceline, Expedia and Travelocity, resulted in the companies paying the counties $6.5 million to settle the case. Monroe County received $1.9 million of that. ALBANY, NY: Residents Call for Town to Address Water Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------- Denis Slattery, writing for New York Daily News, reports that residents of an upstate town angry over state officials' haphazard handling of their contaminated water crisis flooded Albany on June 15 seeking answers. The fear that residents face and the anger over the response from officials echo of the Flint, Mich. lead crisis. Loreen Hackett and about two dozen of her neighbors from the tiny hamlet of Hoosick Falls gathered outside the state Senate chamber hoisting signs with numbers showing how much perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, a chemical linked to cancer, is in their bodies. They called on the Legislature to hold hearings. They called for a meeting with Gov. Cuomo. Upstate residents use social media to spread water crisis They pleaded for answers. "We need federal and state hearings to figure out what went wrong so that you, communities of New York and beyond, don't have to endure the same thing we have had to," said Rob Allen, a Hoosick Falls father of three who teaches music at a high school. Residents of the Rensselaer County town began receiving their blood test results from the state Health Department in the past two weeks, months after they learned the chemical was in the water supply, PFOA, used in the production of nonstick kitchenware, has been linked to elevated risk for numerous maladies, including several forms of cancer. ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Medina Wage & Hour Suit Won't Proceed as Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Melinda Harmon denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled MARTHA MEDINA, the Plaintiff, v. ALICIA'S MEXICAN GRILLE INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-1192 (S.D. Tex.). The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any other aggrieved employees have an interest in joining her lawsuit. This fact, combined with the sparse evidence that other potential plaintiffs even exist, makes certification inappropriate, Judge Harmon said. Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to Sections 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Medina filed her Complaint "as a collective action, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated servers, waiters/waitresses, hostesses, bartenders, and other tipped employees and those performing the same or similar job duties at Alicia's who might opt-in this lawsuit." The Complaint says Plaintiff and other members of the Class: (1) were required to participate in a mandatory tip pool, which was extended to employees that do not regularly and customarily receive tips; (2) had the cost of uniforms deducted from their pay, thus reducing their pay below the statutory minimum wage; (3) had impermissible withholdings from their tips for incorrectly fulfilled orders; and (4) were required to work off-the-clock, resulting in unpaid hours and artificially reducing hours below 40 hours per week. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0PZLAFP6 ART.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Knapp" -------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JAMES PRESCOTT KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. ART.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00768-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied, in part, Art.com, Inc.'s motion to dismiss and strike. James Knapp brought a putative class action against Art.com, accusing it of violating California's consumer protection laws by conducting "perpetual sales" that deceive consumers into believing that they are receiving significant bargains on Art.com's merchandise, when in fact they are not. Art.com moved to dismiss or strike certain portions of Knapp's first amended complaint. Judge Orrick dismissed with leave to amend Knapp's claims under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) to the extent that they are based on section 52(a). The judge held that Knapp has not stated a claim under the UCL's fraudulent prong. Judge Orrick denied Art.com's motion in all other respects. Knapp may file a second amended complaint within 20 days of the date of the order. A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's June 15, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/aaXsfP from Leagle.com. James Prescott Knapp, Plaintiff, represented by Jason H. Kim -- jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, Kyle Geoffrey Bates -- kbates@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd M. Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Aubry Wand, The Wand Law Firm. Art.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moe Keshavarzi -- mkesharvarzi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Andrew Alexander Kuljis -- akuljis@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & John Michael Landry -- jlandry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. AMERICAN BAR: Dismissal of Suit Over Admission Test Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned ANGELO BINNO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-2263 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling granting the American Bar Association (ABA)'s motion to dismiss. Angelo Binno is a legally blind individual who applied for admission to several law schools, unsuccessfully, and thereafter filed an action against the American Bar Association (ABA), under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that his lack of success was due to a discriminatory admissions test "mandated" by the ABA. The admissions examination in question, utilized by nearly all law schools in the United States, is the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). Binno contended that the questions on the LSAT have a discriminatory effect on the blind and visually impaired because a quarter of those questions "require spatial reasoning and visual diagramming for successful completion." He alleged that his poor performance on the LSAT has prevented him from being admitted to accredited law schools, in violation of Titles III and V of the ADA. The district court granted the ABA's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff Binno lacked standing to sue the ABA and, alternatively, that his amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief under either Title III or Title V of the ADA as a matter of law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Binno does not have standing to sue the ABA because his injury was not caused by the ABA and because it is unlikely that his injury would be redressed by a favorable decision against the ABA. The appellate court further held that, even if Binno could establish standing, the district court correctly dismissed his Title III and Title V claims for failure to state claims for which relief may be granted. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 16, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/L07afK from Leagle.com. Jason Marc Turkish, NYMAN TURKISH PC, Southfield, Michigan, Melissa M. Nyman, Rocklin, California, Richard H. Bernstein, THE SAM BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant. Anne E. Rea -- area@sidley.com -- Tacy F. Flint, John M. Skakun III -- jskakun@sidley.com -- Steven J. Horowitz -- shorowitz@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Amicus Curiae. AUSTRALIA: Failed Equine Flu Class Action Hits Maurice Blackburn ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports that Maurice Blackburn has been left $11 million out of pocket after abandoning its class action against the federal government over the 2007 horse flu outbreak that brought the racing industry to its knees. The flunk of the case is also potentially damaging for Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, who could face a backlash from stud farmers and horse racing industry participants in his rural New England electorate. A spokeswoman at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers confirmed the case was settled in principle and would be discontinued, subject to the pending approval of the Federal Court. A trial for the matter on behalf of 587 group members, predominantly from the horse racing industry, was due to begin on June 6, nine years after the case was first brought, but was halted after failed mediation attempts in May. Maurice Blackburn had claimed the Commonwealth breached its duty of care by failing to prevent the virus escaping from the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station near Penrith in NSW, leading to the infection of thousands of horses and six-month restrictions on the movement of horses. But the spokeswoman conceded the proposed settlement was made without any admission of liability on the Commonwealth's part and did not involve any compensation. "We fought this case hard all the way and risked plenty to provide access to justice and a chance at compensation for the people badly affected by the equine influenza outbreak," the spokeswoman said. "Unfortunately, we were not successful in this instance, despite our best efforts." She said clients were protected from risk and the firm would cover the millions of dollars in legal costs from the case. It is understood to amount to about $11 million. A confidential note to clients from Maurice Blackburn, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, said the Commonwealth had adopted a "policy position not to pay any amount in settlement". The firm said it had previously received advice from senior barristers that the prospects of success were good, but the matter could only be assessed after all expert evidence was filed. Based on the recent advice of trial counsel, the case had little prospect of success. The modest amount that could be recovered would be entirely consumed by additional legal costs required for a 12-week trial. Mr. Joyce did not comment, nor did the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, except to say it had spent $263.81 million on the equine influenza assistance package for individuals, business and organizations between August 2007 and June 2009. One of three lead plaintiffs, Gary Turkington, who owns the Wattle Brae thoroughbred stud at Nobby in Queensland, said he lost $7 million in the outbreak and many others had lost their homes and livelihoods. "It is disappointing the Commonwealth has dug its heels in. On a point of law they can win but morally the 587 of us have had our businesses slaughtered by it," Mr. Turkington said. "Why bother spending $40 million on a royal commission to show it was a disgrace and then no one is compensated?" A royal commission into the affair in 2008 by former High Court judge Ian Callinan found the outbreak occurred because quarantine and biosecurity authorities at the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station were "inefficient, underfunded and lacking diligence". Mr. Turkington said he hoped whoever formed government after the election would provide assistance for people in exceptional circumstances to rebuild their businesses. "Politicians won't make promises now," he said. "But there will be a backlash if nothing happens after the election." BANK OF NEW YORK: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Depositary Receipts -------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The primary claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits are all pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York and are all in their early stages. BELLAIRE FAMILY: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned Gloria Lydia Arellano on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Vladimnir Tabakman, DDS, PC d/b/a Bellaire Family Orthodontics, Case No. 4:16-cv-00820 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court for class certification and expedited discovery. The Class includes all other similarly situated employees of Defendant. The similarly situated employees who may join this action as opt-in plaintiffs are all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who held the title "Administrative Assistant" and who worked for Defendant during the class period. Furthermore these employees were not paid for all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their regular rates and now seek payment for such overtime wages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests the Court to require the Defendant's representative to produce under oath and under penalty of perjury, the names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of all such members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WvivDe1B BERNARD FREUNDEL: Sanford Appointed as Interim Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanford Heisler, LLP on June 15 disclosed that when Rabbi Bernard "Barry" Freundel, a nationally recognized authority in Jewish law, and the longstanding rabbi of Georgetown Synagogue-Kesher Israel Congregation was arrested in October 2014 on charges of voyeurism, the news made national headlines and generated two proposed class action suits. On June 14, in a significant move forward, the D.C. Superior Court issued an omnibus order establishing a series of deadlines for vigorous prosecution of several proposed class actions arising out of Mr. Freundel's voyeuristic and criminal acts. The order set dates for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint, specifies deadlines for the close of fact and expert witness discovery, and directs that any motion for class certification be submitted on May 12, 2017, with a hearing on class certification to be held on June 13, 2017. In another important move, the Court appointed Sanford Heisler, LLP as interim class counsel. The lawsuit arose from a shocking betrayal of trust by Mr. Freundel. Early in 2015, Mr. Freundel plead guilty, in a criminal proceeding before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to numerous counts of illicitly filming women as they used the "mikvah" -- a Jewish ritual bath frequently used by married Orthodox women as well as by women undergoing conversion to Judaism. The D. C. law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. filed one of the original class actions. "We are honored to be working with Sanford Heisler to bring relief to the women who were so terribly abused by Mr. Freundel's illegal conduct," said Ira Sherman, founding partner of Chaikin Sherman, who is collaborating with Sanford Heisler on this matter. "It's a team effort we are proud of and I am confident that together we can achieve some measure of justice for the victims in this case." After briefing and argument, Judge Brian F. Holeman of the D.C. Superior Court appointed Sanford Heisler as lead interim counsel. The Court stated that Sanford Heisler Chairman David Sanford's "willingness to follow the Court's directions and his succinct presentation on behalf of [Sanford Heisler] demonstrates that [the firm] possesses the understanding, knowledge, experience, and capability to perform the required work on behalf of the putative class Plaintiffs." The court also praised Mr. Sanford's candor, experience, and foresight in proposing a definitive timeframe for pre-certification discovery. Judge Holeman emphasized that Sanford Heisler has been recognized by various courts for excellence in class action litigation and representation. Based on all of these factors, Judge Holeman concluded that Sanford Heisler is "capable of exercising the managerial functions required of lead interim class counsel." In response to Judge Holeman's ruling, David Sanford said, "We are gratified that Judge Holeman selected our firm to serve as interim class counsel. It is a serious responsibility and one we are confident that we can handle successfully. Our firm has a long history of representing women who have suffered gender discrimination. This suit is another variation on a sadly too- familiar theme." About Sanford Heisler, LLP Sanford Heisler, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler-- is a national public interest class-action litigation law firm, which has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, and San Diego. Sanford Heisler specializes in employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam, and other civil rights matters. The firm also represents select individual clients such as executives, lawyers in employment disputes, and whistleblowers. The firm has recovered over $1 billion for its clients. About Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. The office of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. -- http://www.chaikinandsherman.com-- is a personal injury law firm focused on seeking compensation for individuals who sustained serious personal injury. BET365: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Free Bet" Offer --------------------------------------------------------- Simon Thomsen, writing for Business Insider Australia, reports that Sydney firm Bannister Law is looking at launching a class action against online betting agency Bet365 after a free bets offer was declared misleading and deceptive. The Federal Court fined the company $2.75 million following legal action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over Bet365's "$200 free bets to new customers" between March 2013 and January 2014. The court found last September that the promotion was misleading and deceptive and involved false representations because the fine print of the offer was not easily apparent. To receive the free cash, new customers had to deposit $200 of their own money and gamble it before receiving the $200 free bet. They then had to gamble it all three times before withdrawing any winnings, so at least $1200 was gambled before getting any money back. Justice Beach of the Federal Court concluded that Bet365's conduct involved a significant element of recklessness. "New customers who had not previously used such types of services were drawn into this web of deception. But other customers who had used such types of services before may have been similarly enticed," Justice Beach concluded. Bet365 issued a statement saying it regrets that "as a result of an unintentional software error . . . it may not have adequately brought to the attention of customers terms and conditions associated with the promotion". Charles Bannister, of Bannister Law, said the potential class action would seek to recover damages for affected consumers in relation to a promotion and advertising campaign during the period March 13, 2013 to January 13, 2014. He said initial estimates suggest more than 70,000 people registered with Bet365 in the relevant period and could be part of the claim. His firm was opening registrations for the class action on June 16. BLU SUSHI: Settlement Agreement in "Mitchell" Suit Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Carol Mirando entered an order in the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLU SUSHI DOWNTOWN LLC, ERIC MAWBY and EMRAH SEVINCH, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv- 731-FtM-CM (M.D. Fla.), granting an Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Parties' Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice, and approving an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. The parties have clarified that Plaintiffs will receive independent consideration in the amount of $500.00 each in exchange for the general release. Because the settlement as to the only two plaintiffs in this action provides full and final relief to the plaintiffs, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members with Incorporated Memorandum of Law is denied as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime benefits. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BMKNMjVq CALIFORNIA: Restrictions on Immigrant Detainee Phone Use Eased -------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Laughland, writing for The Guardian, reports that thousands of immigrants detained in facilities in northern California will enjoy improved access to legal counsel, following a major class action settlement that lawyers hope will set a nationwide precedent. The settlement will ensure detainees at four centers are permitted freer access to telephones in order to contact attorneys throughout their removal proceedings, a right they claimed was routinely denied due to unconstitutional restrictions that violated Immigration and Customs Enforcement's own guidelines. Plaintiffs argued that officials at the West County detention facility, the Yuba County jail, Rio Cosumnes correctional center and Mesa Verde detention facility, employed a number of policies, including prohibitively expensive tariffs and automatically timed hangups, which in effect barred many inmates from accessing facility phones. They also highlighted that phones automatically cut off if they rang through to voicemail or if they connected to an automated system, and that detainees could not receive incoming calls. The lawsuit added that some inmates were only allowed to make phone calls during a "free time" window, often as short as two hours a day, when allowed out of their cells, and claimed that many telephones were located in common areas meaning little privacy during sensitive legal conversations. IP, one of the lead plaintiffs who requested he not be identified, spoke to the Guardian and claimed he saw many men at the Rio Cosumnes facility who might have qualified for prosecutorial discretion instead opting to depart the US, as they could not contact an attorney to represent them. "It was nearly impossible to contact an attorney," he said, adding that listed phone numbers to pro bono attorneys displayed in the jail never connected. "When people thought they had no access, they would get really frustrated. I saw it happen hundreds of times, people just giving up. There was one man, who had two children and a pregnant wife in the US. They needed money as she wasn't working. So he ended up signing a deportation order so he could be removed and try to send money back to her." IP, who crossed the border from Mexico when he four years old, was able to obtain a private attorney with help from his family. He was released on bail last year and is awaiting a deportation hearing later in the year. A copy of the settlement, reviewed by the Guardian before it was submitted to court, highlights a raft of reforms in the centres including: -- Free calls to pre-registered pro bono attorneys and selected government agencies from housing unit phones. -- Extending call cut-off times to up to one hour in certain facilities. -- Erecting 40 phone booths in each facility to address concerns over privacy and noise. -- Extending access to telephones throughout the day to detainees in more restrictive incarceration. -- Developing a system to deliver telephone messages to detainees. The agreement, which is not an admission of wrongdoing, will be phased in throughout the year. Carl Takei, an attorney with the ACLU's national prison project said he hoped the agreement would pave the way for reform across the federal network of immigration prisons. "The barriers to telephone access that we challenged in this case are not unique. Across the country Ice holds more than 30,000 immigrants each day in about 250 county jails, private prisons and federally run facilities with similarly restrictive policies. That's why we hope this settlement serves as a model for these other facilities around the country. A nationwide survey conducted by the National Immigrant Justice Center in 2010 found that 78% of detained immigrants had been prohibited from scheduling private calls with attorneys. According to research published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in 2015, 86% of detained immigrants go without legal counsel. "This case is about fundamental fairness in the American legal system. The practices that we challenged were Ice blocking detained immigrants' ability to communicate with the outside world, and because of that blocking, most were detained while fighting their deportation and not getting a fair shot in court. This is unfair and fundamentally un-American," Mr. Takei added. CANADA: Disabled Veterans Head Back to Court in Benefits Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a class- action lawsuit filed by a group of wounded military veterans who are seeking better benefits from the federal government is heading back to court. More than a year ago, the two sides agreed to suspend court action pending negotiations aimed at resolving issues surrounding benefits and programs. The agreement, which came to an end in May, failed to result in a settlement between the parties. In court documents filed by the veterans, the group expressed unhappiness that the government is taking the position that the B.C. Court of Appeal, which heard two days of arguments in December 2014, now can rule on the government's appeal of a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The government's position shows a "complete disregard" for commitments the government made and the election platform of the Liberal Party in support of veterans, say the documents. "The procedure adopted by the appellant in this case of asking the court to rule on the appeal on the basis of the December 2014 arguments is, to say the least, objectionable." The documents say the appellants failed to disclose to the appeal court that their legal position at the December hearing had been repudiated within months by the former Conservative government. In light of other developments, including Parliament's passage in May 2015 of a resolution supporting the veterans, the plaintiffs are calling for the appeal court to hear further arguments before ruling on the case. The case was heading back to the B.C. Court of Appeal in Vancouver on June 17. The class action lawsuit was filed in 2012 by six injured veterans of the war in Afghanistan, who argued they deserved disability payments comparable to what any other worker would receive through workers' compensation. The veterans were upset that lifelong pensions were replaced by lump-sum payments as a result of the 2006 New Veterans Charter. The government attempted to have the case thrown out of court, but the B.C. Supreme Court declined to do so. The government then filed an appeal of the lower court ruling to the B.C. Court of Appeal. In an email, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr said Canadians gave his government a mandate to repair the relationship with veterans and he remains committed to do so. The government delivered $5.6 billion in financial security for veterans in this year's budget, including increasing benefits, enhancing a disability award, opening 10 offices and hiring more staff, he added. "Veterans and stakeholder groups have made it clear they want these changes done right and not rushed and I will work with all veterans groups to accomplish this." CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Evidentiary Requirement Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- John F. Nucci, Esq. -- JFNucci@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that in January of 2016, the law firm commented on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the seminal case of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green. There, the Court held that a prospective plaintiff must move for leave to commence a class action for secondary market misrepresentation before the three-year statute of limitations passes; but if leave is not actually granted within that time period, the Court has jurisdiction to allow leave and backdate it to within the three year period. Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London had its first opportunity to consider the test for leave in the aftermath of Green in Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd. ("Bradley"). The court's decision there shed further light on the evidence a plaintiff must proffer to "surpass the leave threshold." The prospective class plaintiffs in Bradley alleged that Eastern Platinum Ltd. ("Eastern") committed a secondary market misrepresentation through the release of its production results for Q1 of 2011. Eastern is platinum mining company, and the press release outlined the operating results from the Crocodile River Mine ("CRM") for the period ending on March 31, 2011. The press release indicated that "[t]he traditional slow start in January combined with the introduction of revised support methods resulted in a significant decrease in production for the quarter," but went on to state that Eastern was "confident that the impact of this is short term and that production will return to anticipated levels." The day after the information was released, Eastern's stock price fell from $1.30 to $1.10 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The plaintiffs filed notice of application for leave to commence a class action on June 28, 2011, alleging that Eastern failed to disclose a complete or partial shutdown of operations at the CRM in Q1 of 2011, which resulted in a reduction in production. The application was amended on June 18, 2012, to further allege that cement grout packs were introduced at the CRM in Q1 of 2011, which take significantly longer to install than C-packs and thus constituted an undisclosed material change due to its impact on the decline of production. Eastern denied this and presented compelling evidence that C-packs, as opposed to cement grout packs, were installed in Q1 of 2011, causing no slowdown in productivity. Section 138.8 of the Securities Act provides that no securities class action may be commenced without leave of court. Such leave is granted only where the court is satisfied that (a) the action is being brought in good faith, and (b) there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence required to show that reasonable possibility was at issue here. Eastern opposed the application, stating that the action was not brought in good faith and, more importantly, that there was no reasonably possibility that the action would be resolved in favor of the prospective class. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that they had submitted sufficient evidence to clear what they claimed is the "low reasonable possibility of success at trial standard" necessary for the grant of leave. Citing extensively from Green, the court considered what standard ought to be applied to the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the application for leave level. In his decision, Justice Randy concluded that the motions judge must ensure that the leave requirement is more than a "speed bump" in the litigation, and that the plaintiff must show that there is a "reasonable or realistic chance that the action will succeed." In effect, this means that a plaintiff must "offer both a plausible analysis of the applicable legislative provisions and credible evidence in support of the claim." Upon hearing that evidence, the motion judge must make a "robust, meaningful examination and critical evaluation of the evidence (or the absence of evidence)." Most importantly, the court held that the standard "is not a low bar." Because the plaintiffs' application was not supported by "the overwhelming weight of the evidence that points to the opposite conclusion," the application was dismissed. The Bradley court's reasoned evaluation of the "reasonable or realistic chance" standard is a good one. In requiring the prospective class plaintiffs to present more than just speculative evidence, the court took steps to prevent the time and costs associated with frivolous litigation. The application for leave process was put into place to prevent class action lawsuits brought in bad faith. The thinking behind the leave requirement is thus best served where the court disposes of applications with little chance of success at an early stage. That was the case here, where the court noted that there was "very compelling and persuasive evidence" that cement grout packs were not introduced in Q1 of 2011, and where plaintiffs did not present any firm evidence showing that a complete or partial shutdown of CRM even occurred at all. Absent such evidence, plaintiffs claim was reasonably dismissed before any more time or money could be spent on a claim that was almost certain to fail. CARFAX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Subscription Pricing Model ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zachery Eanes, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that Used-vehicles record provider Carfax Inc. has been sued for allegedly using an unfair pricing model for its subscription services. Alabama-based used-car dealer Turnbull Automotive filed the lawsuit June 10 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, claiming Centreville-based Carfax significantly increased monthly installments on its subscriptions without justification. "Carfax intends to increase prices when it enters into the agreement, but deliberately and unfairly concealed this intent in order to lock customers into a price Carfax has no intention of honoring," Turnbull's lawsuit states. Carfax said it does not comment on pending litigation. It has not filed a response in court yet. A subscription to Carfax's VHS service gives customers access to information on the repair history of used cars. The lawsuit claims that price increases to subscriptions are unfair and that Carfax breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in the amounts it increased contracts. VHS agreements state that "Carfax may modify the prices for use of the VHS" but Turnbull argues that Carfax did not use "discretion to increase prices in good faith," as required by Virginia law. The suit, which was filed on behalf of all individuals and entities who have entered into contracts with Carfax, seeks more than $5 million in damages. Turnbull claims that Carfax lures customers into yearlong, automatically renewed contracts and then increases prices without justification. Turnbull Automotive first subscribed to Carfax's database in 2012 for $250 a month for six months. In January 2013, the subscription was automatically renewed at an agreed upon $499 per month, according to court documents. Turnbull continued paying $499 a month until April 2014, when its monthly payment was raised to $529. Carfax gave no explanation for the increase in pricing when Turnbull complained to a company representative, according to the complaint. After Turnbull automatically renewed its contract in January 2015, Carfax again raised prices in April to $569 a month. Turnbull contested this increase. Carfax threatened litigation over the dispute and eventually turned Turnbull's account over to a collection agency, to whom Turnbull payed the full amount. CARIS LIFE: Must Pay $16MM Damages to Stock Option Holders ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Caris Life Sciences Inc. won't be able to escape a ruling requiring it to pay over $16.2 million in damages to a class of stock option holders, a majority of the Delaware Supreme Court ruled June 6 (CDX Holdings Inc. (f/k/a Caris Life Sciences Inc.) v. Fox, 2016 BL 180519, Del., No. 526, 6/6/16 ). In a rare divided decision, the state high court affirmed 4-1 a July 2015 ruling in which the Delaware Chancery Court concluded that the medical diagnostics company undervalued two spun-off business units when it used a complex spin/merger to effectuate the sale of its pathology unit. Although the dissenting judge mounted a vigorous argument, the majority deferred to the chancery court's factual findings. Writing for the majority, Delaware Supreme Court Judge Randy Holland said the lower court's findings were supported by the record and were the product of sound reasoning. The chancery court found that Caris breached a stock incentive plan requiring the company to reimburse employees for stock options cancelled in the merger, in the amount that the stocks' fair market value exceeded the exercise price (13 CARE 1712, 7/31/15). The lower court said Caris's board failed to make "Fair Market Value" determinations it was supposed to make under the plan. Dissenting Opinion After the company's spin/merger transaction was completed, a Caris employee option holder filed a class action claiming that the share value attributed to the spin-offs wasn't made in good faith. The chancery court found that Caris Chief Financial Officer Gerard Martino made option-value determinations that undervalued two spin-offs to minimize the tax liabilities of Chief Executive Officer David Halbert, who owned 70.4 percent of the company. In her dissent, Judge Karen Valihura said the chancery court's decision should be reversed because it made no factual findings supporting a conclusion that the board acted in bad faith. She specifically disagreed with the lower court's finding that the board hadn't acted at all. "If the trial court believed that the Board had not acted, then it should have proceeded to analyze whether a majority of the Board intentionally failed to act in the face of a known duty to act," she wrote. "This typically requires an extraordinary set of facts. Such facts, as to the Board's conduct, are not present here." CBL & ASSOCIATES: Sued in Ten. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ The Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., Stephen D. Lebovitz, and Farzana K. Mitchell, Case No. 1:16-cv-00195 (E.D. Ten., June 9, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust ("REIT"), and purports to be one of the largest and most active owners and developers of malls and shopping centers in the United States, owning, holding interests in, or managing more than 140 properties across 31 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mails: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CBS RADIO: Class Certification Sought in "Bonin" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled ELAINE BONIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBS RADIO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00674-CNC (E.D. Wisc.), Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order: -- certifying the proposed class in this case, -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, -- appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, -- staying this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, -- granting the parties relief from the automatic briefing schedule pursuant to local rules, and the requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qXAsFndd The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com CC&D LLC: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that two men have filed a class-action suit against their former employer alleging they were not paid overtime wages. Victor Ortega and Carlos Posada filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on May 23 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against CC&D LLC, doing business as Construction Concepts, and Joshua Weisman citing violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between January and April, they worked for more than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid any overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid overtime wages at the legal applicable rate, liquidated damages equal to the unpaid wages, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems just. They are represented by Josef F. Buenker and Vijay A. Pattisapu of Buenker Law Firm in Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-01440 CELAPURE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Transmissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hadley, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida physician is suing two skin care companies claiming their unsolicited fax campaign violates the 2005 Junk Fax Protection Act. Dr. Steven Arkin, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit on May 31 in U.S. District Court for the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida against Celapure LLC, AQ Skin Solutions Inc. and 10 unnamed defendants. According to the complaint, the defendants sent Dr. Arkin and other class members unsolicited facsimile transmissions, expending paper and ink and preventing fax machine use while messages are received. The plaintiff and other class members seek monetary damages of $500 for each JFPA violation, interest and court costs. They are represented by Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Ross M. Good -- RGood@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. U.S. District Court for the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida Case number 8:16-cv-01352 CELLCEUTIX CORP: Court Junks "Zagami" Suit ------------------------------------------ In the case captioned GARY ZAGAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 7194 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Gary Zagami's second amended complaint in its entirety. Judge Failla also denied Zagami's request for leave to replead. A full-text copy of Judge Failla's June 8, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/e4ltBI from Leagle.com. Zagami initiated the putative class action against Cellceutix Corporation, Krishna Menon, and Leo Ehrlich, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, following the online posting of a scathing article by an admitted (and thus admittedly self-interested) short seller. Gary Zagami, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Cellceutix Corporation, Leo Ehrlich, Krishna Menon, Defendants, represented by Michael J Sullivan -- msullivan@egsllp.com -- pro hac vice. CHIPOTLE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Denver ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Markus, writing for Colorado Public Radio, Chipotle can add yet another headache to the company's mounting troubles that include cases of foodborne illness, federal investigations and class action lawsuits. Several shareholders have filed suit in Denver District Court, claiming that Chipotle's executives and board of directors conspired to unjustly award themselves, "hundreds of millions of dollars through a corrupt stock incentive plan" at the expense of investors, customers, and even the company itself. The lawsuit is known as a shareholder derivative suit, meaning the shareholders in this case are bringing the action on behalf of the company itself against the executives. According to the lawsuit, executives, acting on inside information, sold tens of millions of dollars in shares in the months leading up to outbreaks of foodborne illness at multiple restaurants. The Denver-based company's share price has collapsed, down nearly 50 percent, since news broke late last year of customers sickened by E. coli and norovirus contaminated food from California to Massachusetts. Steve Ells, the founder and co-CEO, sold $78.3 million in company shares, "while the stock price was artificially inflated and before the fraud was exposed," according to the lawsuit. And, at the direction of top executives, the company repurchased stock at an inflated price, costing, "$84 million more than the stock was actually worth." The lawsuit also alleges the company's executives failed to protect customers from illness, and should have informed investors of, "subpar food safety standards adhered to at various Chipotle restaurants, so that the market price of the Company's common stock would be based upon truthful and accurate information." "Chipotle's image of a company that serves fresh, healthy, high- quality and clean food may never revive," states the lawsuit filed in early April in Denver and consolidated with a similar case in May. Representatives for Chipotle said they don't discuss pending legal actions, but the company acknowledged the lawsuits in its most recent public filing, adding, "the Company intends to defend these cases vigorously." Earlier this year Chipotle was served with a subpoena in a federal criminal investigation centered on a norovirus outbreak at a Simi Valley, California restaurant. The company is also fighting a separate federal class action shareholder lawsuit and several civil claims from customers related to the illnesses. CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss on July 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- Cormedix Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument on a motion to dismiss class action lawsuit is scheduled for July 18, 2016. On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264. On September 4, 2015, two individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul Chretien (the "Martini Group"), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On that same date, another individual, Elaine Wood, filed a competing Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On September 18, 2015, the Martini Group withdrew its motion. Thereafter, on September 22, 2015, the Court appointed Elaine Wood as Lead Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015, appointed the Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel. On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims that the Company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy Milby and Harry O'Grady (the "Cormedix Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also names as defendants several unrelated entities that allegedly were paid stock promoters. Lead Plaintiff alleges generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the competitive landscape for the Company's Neutrolin product and the alleged use of stock promoters. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2) scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation. The parties are in the process of briefing that motion and oral argument currently is scheduled for July 18, 2016. The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims in the class action and intends to continue vigorously defending the case. CPI CARD: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on June 15 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of CPI Card Group Inc. ("CPI" or the "Company") common stock in connection with CPI's October 8, 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"), including purchasers of the common stock in the aftermarket. This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Vance v. CPI Card Group Inc., No. 1:16- cv-04531. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 15, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld or Andrew L. Schwartz of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cpiinc/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges CPI, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of CPI's IPO and certain selling shareholders with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. CPI is a leading provider of payment card production and related services, offering a single source for credit, debit and prepaid debit cards, including "EMV" (Europay, MasterCard and Visa) chip, personalization, instant issuance, fulfillment and mobile payment services. CPI markets its products and services to national and regional banks, independent community banks, credit unions, managers of prepaid programs, group service providers, and card processors through field-based sales representatives in North America, Western Europe, the United Kingdom and Canada. The complaint alleges that at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, the Company had shipped upwards of 100 million more cards to its larger issuer customers than they were using in the second quarter and first part of the third quarter of 2015, resulting in the buildup of a massive backlog with those customers, which was significantly reducing the demand for additional card shipments in the fourth quarter of 2015 and fiscal 2016. The adverse events and uncertainties associated with CPI's largest customers' inventory levels was reasonably likely to have a material impact on CPI's profitability and, therefore, was required to be disclosed in the Registration Statement, but was not. The IPO was successful for the Company, the selling stockholders and the underwriters who sold 17.25 million shares of CPI common stock at $10 per share, raising $172.5 million in gross proceeds. At the time of the filing of the complaint, CPI common stock was trading at about $4.70 per share -- 53% less than the IPO price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock in or pursuant to CPI's October 8, 2015 IPO, including purchasers of the common stock in the aftermarket (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years. Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. CVS HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in "Bordenet" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve entered order in the lawsuit styled Patricia Bordenet, the Plaintiff, v. CVS Health Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06103 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice, with leave to refile. The Defendant is on notice that this is a putative class action. No appearance is required on the July 6, 2016 notice motion date, according to a Docket Entry the Clerk of Court made on June 14, 2016. An initial status hearing is set for July 27, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by July 21 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. If the defendant has not been served as of July 21, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until the defendant is served. If the defendant files a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the joint status report, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until after the Court rules on the pending motion. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bjBKJrGb CUYAHOGA, OH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Butterfield" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Butterfield, Tonya Dixon, Laurie Mickey, James Shannon, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV-16-86444 (Ohio Comm. Pl., June 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Senior Account Technicians overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Cuyahoga County is a county in the state of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Roberts, Esq. THE ROBERTS LAW FIRM 7622 Columbia Road Olmsted Falls, OH 44138 Telephone: (440) 793-6255 Facsimile: (440) 793-6256 E-mail: ktr@kevinrobertslaw.com - and - Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. Ellen M. Kramer, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com emk@crklaw.com DELAWARE: Ali Seeks Class Status of Suit v. Dept. of Corrections ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAMSIDIN ALI, a/k/a/ Robert Saunders, the Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., the Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-01089-GMS (D. Del.), asks Court to certify the following class: "all Muslim inmates imprisoned under Delaware Department of Corrections (DDOC)." According to the motion, the class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by DDOC. There are more than 500 inmates imprisoned under Delaware Department of Corrections that are Muslims. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GtHyHDEZ DUPONT: PFOA Class Action Litigation Ongoing in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- Sharon Lerner, writing for The Intercept, reports that early this month, a trial got underway in Ohio over the industrial chemical PFOA (also known as C8). The trial is the fourth of six bellwether personal injury cases against DuPont stemming from a massive class-action lawsuit. Last July, DuPont spun off its "performance chemicals" division, forming a new company known as Chemours, along with responsibility for a large portion of its environmental liabilities, including litigation over PFOA. Then, in December, DuPont announced plans to merge what was left of its company with another chemical giant, Dow, and to divide the resulting corporate colossus into three separate entities. Together, the moves leave those struggling with DuPont's environmental legacy with lots of questions. So even as they're litigating the case of David Freeman, an Ohio man who developed testicular cancer after drinking water contaminated with PFOA, attorneys have also been asking the court to compel DuPont to demonstrate its ability to cover any awards to Freeman and other plaintiffs. In particular, they want to know "where the liabilities and obligations of DuPont will fall" if the merger takes place. In their most recent legal brief in what is known as the Leach case, submitted on May 11 to Federal Judge Edmund Sargus, lawyers reiterated fears that the proposed Dow-DuPont merger "may be an attempt to extinguish DuPont's liability" for claims related to PFOA. "DuPont reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the manufacture of C-8 at its Washington Works plant and is now taking the position that not one Leach class member is entitled to compensation for injuries linked to their exposure to C-8." In its own brief, filed on May 4, DuPont said there had been no decision yet as to how the emerging companies will handle the costs in the PFOA cases and called the plaintiffs' request for documents premature as well as "improper and intrusive." DuPont's lawyers also said that the plaintiffs' accusations that the company was dodging its responsibilities were "merely speculative." Those awaiting their day in court said they were worried not just that DuPont would try to duck out of its financial responsibilities, but that the company might disappear entirely. While DuPont has repeatedly promised that it will cover its liabilities, plaintiffs' lawyers responded that those assurances are meaningless "if DuPont fails to exist, which is likely after the impending merger." "I'm afraid DuPont will vanish," said Rob Bilott, the attorney who oversees the class-action suit. ERIN ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------- Erin Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 5, 2016, a class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the Company and on behalf of a putative class of persons who were stockholders as of the date the Company (1) acquired the Allied Assets pursuant to the Transfer Agreement and (2) issued shares to the PIC in a private placement (collectively the "February 2014 Transactions"). The Company said, "The complaint alleges the February 2014 Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to assert derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions and (2) our majority shareholder, CEHL. The complaint also purports to assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the putative class against the seven individuals who served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions on the grounds that they purportedly caused the Company to disseminate a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the 2014 Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding and abetting against Dr. Lawal. The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and the putative class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery. On March 3, 2016, all of the defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the complaint." FANDUEL: Mulls Merger with Draftkings Amid Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Brown, writing for TheStreet, reports that the daily fantasy industry is struggling amid increased scrutiny from state governments. Investors are losing confidence -- and money -- and it looks like a missed deadline could cut the company off from a huge source of revenue until 2017. Given these troubles, these bitter rivals have proposed the unthinkable. Reports emerged earlier in the week that FanDuel and DraftKings, the industry's two largest players, are in talks to combine. Why would these once-billion-dollar companies, which reportedly hate each other, try to merge so quickly after launching? It's a Hail Mary meant to save the firms. The two companies have lost nearly half their value as their operations have been halted in 11 states, including New York and Texas. Lawmakers are currently deliberating whether to allow the sites to start operating again. In February, Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox (FOXA) revealed in a regulatory filing that it had marked down the company's $160 million investment into DraftKings by more than 60%. Other investors can't be happy. For DraftKings, they include Madison Square Garden Co., and the Kraft Group, which owns the New England Patriots. FanDuel is backed by KKR & Co. and Time Warner Inc., among others. They both have also received funding from venture firms including Shamrock Capital Advisors LLC, GGV Capital and Atlas Venture LP as well as non-traditional investors like Major League Baseball, National Hockey League LP, National Basketball Association and Major League Soccer LLC. Time is running out on these investments. New York's legislature was set to recess on June 16 and, if no decision is made as to the legality of daily fantasy sports in the state before the session ends, the companies would be forced to wait until at least January 2017 to hear their fates. The proposed merger ups the public pressure on lawmakers to take up the issue before recess. The move is aimed at getting approval for the companies to start operation in key states again and not miss out on the bulk of the NFL and MLB seasons and the start of the NBA season -- all huge potential moneymakers, especially the NFL season, which starts on September 8. "The leak of the rumor was by no means accidental, in my opinion" said Dan Wallach a gaming and sports law attorney at Becker & Poliakoff. "The leak appears to be designed to underscore the seriousness of the situation and the position of these companies that [regulators] need to get something done." Some 12% of daily fantasy players live in New York, Mr. Wallach explained, and this leak applies pressure on the legislature and Attorney General Eric Schniederman to rule now on the legality of the games. If June 16 comes and goes without a decision in New York, the outlook is bleak for daily fantasy. FanDuel and DraftKings are facing more than 100 class-action lawsuits and are under scrutiny by a number of states for potentially violating online gaming laws. In addition to putting pressure on lawmakers, a merger could be necessary to counteract regulatory costs, which could run to $1 million per state or more, according to experts. "The unicorn era is over. This is a battle for survival," Mr. Wallach said. "The burn rate is astounding. These guys are hemorrhaging money in legal fees and are on parallel tracks. It makes sense for them to combine both in the short term and long term." FEDEX GROUND: Court Awards $37.2MM Attorney's Fees in "Alexander" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DEAN ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 05-cv- 00038-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen granted final approval and the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs and incentive awards. Judge Chen awarded $37.2 million in fees which represents 16.5% of the common fund. The jduge also granted the incentive awards requested by the plaintiffs -- i.e. $10,000 to each original named plaintiff and $1,500 to plaintiff Marjorie Pontarolo. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 15, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/laytvh from Leagle.com. Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Joey Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Kaufmann -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- LEONARD CARDER LLP, Beth A. Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, David Philip Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, Elizabeth R Gropman, Leonard Carder LLP & Elizabeth Cara Morris, Leonard Carder, LLP. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.comm -- O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole M. Friedenberg, Winston & Strawn LLP, Carolyn Kubota, Robert Swerdlow -- rswerdlow@omm.com -- & Scott Michael Voelz -- svoelz@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers. Fedex Ground Package System Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris A. Hollinger, O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole M. Friedenberg, Winston & Strawn LLP & Scott Michael Voelz, OMelveny Myers. Rafick El-Hani, Defendant, El-Hani Services, Inc., Objector, represented by John William Davis, Law Office of John W. Davis & Steven F. Helfand, Helfand Law Offices. HERSH & HERSH, Interested Party, represented by Mark E. Burton, Jr. -- mburton@hershlaw.com -- Hersh & Hersh. Anthony Brooks, Objector, represented by Mindy Monhai Wong -- mwong@birka-white.com -- Birka White Law Offices. Henrik Zohrabians, Intervenor, represented by Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, Steven Richard Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP & William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP. FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Remands "Taylor" to Trial Court ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Taylor, Exr., Appellee, v. First Resolution Investment Corporation et al., Appellants, No. 2013-0118 (Ohio), the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals that reversed the trial court's granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by First Resolution Investment Corporation's (FRIC), Cheek Law Offices, L.L.C., and Parri Hockenberry, Esq.. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The case began with a default on credit-card debt by Sandra J. Taylor Jarvis, an Ohio consumer. Taylor Jarvis alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), by the entities that purchased her debt and were involved in suing her to collect on it. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio's borrowing statute applies in this case and that therefore, Delaware's statute of limitations applied to FRIC's debt-collection action against Taylor Jarvis. The Court further held that FRIC's complaint against Taylor Jarvis was time-barred and that the filing of a time-barred collection action may form the basis of violations under the FDCPA and the OCSPA. The Court also held that FRIC's claim in its complaint for interest that is unavailable by law was a demand made upon Taylor Jarvis rather than an aspirational request to the trial court and thus can be the basis of an actionable claim under the FDCPA and the OCSPA. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of those causes of action, including a consideration of whether the FDCPA's bona fide error defense is applicable, and for a determination of the cause of action for abuse of process. Finally, the Court held that debt buyers collecting on credit-card debt and their attorneys are subject to the OCSPA. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 16, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/6mKwlO from Leagle.com. Burke & Horrigan, James F. Burke Jr., and John J. Horrigan, for appellee. Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey C. Turner -- jturner@sdtlawyers.com -- John Langenderfer, and Kevin A. Lantz -- klantz@sdtlawyers.com -- for appellants First Resolution Investment Corporation and First Resolution Management Corporation. Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry, L.L.C., and Boyd W. Gentry -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- for appellants Cheek Law Offices, L.L.C., and Parri Hockenberry. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor, and Tracy M. Dickens, Teresa A. Heffernan, Jeffrey Loeser, Brittany M. Steele, and Melissa G. Wright, Assistant Attorneys General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae state of Ohio. Burdge Law Office Co., L.P.A., and Ronald L. Burdge -- ron@ohiolemonlaw.com -- urging affirmance for amicus curiae AARP. Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C., and Michael D. Slodov -- mslodov@sessions.legal -- urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Creditors Attorneys Association and DBA International. FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled DAVID RODRIGUEZ, GREG EDEL, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and ROLAN RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HOUSTON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-245 (S.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs seek conditional certification and issuance of a Court-approved notice to current and former individuals who were employed by Defendants as distributors and classified as independent contractors and who did not receive proper overtime pay. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request: 1) that the Court require Defendants to provide the last known names and addresses for all current and former workers within the potential class; 2) that the Court order Defendants to produce this information within seven days of granting this motion, and in a usable electronic form to reduce any delays in sending out the notices; and 3) that the Court authorize Plaintiffs to mail the notice along with a self-addressed stamped return envelope to Kennard Richard, P.C., to potential opt-in class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6meWyfzz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alfonso Kennard Jr., Esq. Arnoldo J. Rodriguez, Esq. KENNARD & RICHARD PC 2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor Houston, TXs 77057 Telephone: (713) 742 0900 Facsimile: (713) 742 0951 E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com FLOWERS FOODS: "Rosinbaum" Transferred to E.D.N.C. -------------------------------------------------- Judge David C. Keesler granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue of the case captioned BOBBY JO ROSINBAUM, and MORGAN WILLIAM ROBERT, Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and FRANKLIN BAKING CO., LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-581-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.). The case shall be immediately transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division. A full-text copy of Judge Keesler's June 8, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/E5PGZi from Leagle.com. Bobby Jo Rosinbaum and Robert William Morgan, Jr. initiated the action with the filing of a "Class And Collective Action Complaint" on December 1, 2015. The Complaint contended that Franklin Baking Co., LLC and Flowers Foods, Inc. have misclassified "their North Carolina bakery distributor drivers as "independent contractors." Specifically, the Complaint asserted claims for: violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; declaratory judgment; violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act; and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Bobby Jo Rosinbaum, Morgan William Robert, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Christopher D. Jozwiak -- cjozwiak@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia A. Bloodgood -- pabloodgood@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Ann Kitze Collins -- rakitzecollins.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Shawn Justin Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice, Susan E. Ellingstad -- seellingstad@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice & Ann Groninger. Flowers Foods, Inc., Franklin Baking Co., LLC, Defendants, represented by Christopher Eric Humber -- christopher.humber@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Lia Anne Lesner -- lia.lesner@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Michael J. Murphy -- michael.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, pro hac vice. FOUR M FRANCHISING: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Walder, Michael Cho, and Christina O'Neill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Four M Franchising, LLC and Four M Capital LLC, Case No. 509828/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime pay, call-in pay, and other wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate 18 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. Nicholas P. Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 FRESNO, CA: Possible Source of Tainted Tap Water Identified ----------------------------------------------------------- Christina Fan, writing for abc30, reports that it's been 140 days into northeast Fresno's water mystery. City leaders held their second community meeting at Kastner Intermediate School on June 14 to address their latest research regarding discolored tap water. Over the past few months, they've tested dozens of homes. There are results but even more questions. There are a few things the city knows for sure, about 270 homes have requested water testing. The problem is with galvanized piping inside homes, but why some pipes and not others have officials confounded. "People have been sending us photos of pipes they have, pipe samples, it's been a lot of work," director of public utilities Tom Esqueda explained. Those tips led the city to this important discovery. They say certain pipes found in Fresno homes were made in Asia and has been the subject of several class action lawsuits. "Now that we know that we've got a pipe that has some issues with it, can we adjust the chemistry to account for that," Mr. Esqueda said. Several families expressed interest at the meeting to redo their plumbing. The corrosive pipes have been linked to higher levels of lead in some homes. And removal is the only permanent way city officials say you can get rid of discolored water. "I think it's really serious because lead is dangerous, especially to children," said Betsey Lumbye, who's home has discolored water, she says. "So, I think it's important to get this information out." The city says work doesn't stop here. They are attempting to change development codes so future homes won't be built with these problematic pipes. A delayed reaction to a long time problem. But one neighbor says it's better late than never. "I was impressed with their forthrightness and also with the amount of study and analysis," Ms. Lumbye said. It sounds like they have a lot more to do." GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today --------------------------------------------------------- Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on December 3, 2015, the Company agreed in principal to resolve and settle the securities putative class action lawsuit, In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI, pending against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors and other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court has set the final approval hearing of such settlement for June 23, 2016. As of March 31, 2016, the Company's insurance carriers paid $20 million with the remaining $1.7 million paid in April 2016. The Company expects to pay $2.3 million in cash and $1 million in common stock in June 2016. Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, on February 4 and 16, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted preliminary approval of the previously reported settlements that had been reached in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00382-SI and in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00367-SI, respectively. The Court had set the final approval hearings for April 21, 2016 in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation and June 23, 2016 in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation. On April 21, 2016, the Court continued the final approval hearing in In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation to June 23, 2016 for further argument on the fee request by the derivative plaintiffs' attorneys. GEORGIA: Dismissal of "McConnell" Suit v. Labor Dept Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned McCONNELL et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, A16A0655 (Ga. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division affirmed the Superior Court of Cobb County's judgment granting the Georgia Department of Labor's motion to dismiss Thomas McConnell's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 16, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/qBxV1w from Leagle.com. McConnell filed the class action against the Department, alleging several tort claims in connection with the Department's disclosure of personal information of McConnell and the proposed class members. GRIMES COUNTY, TX: Wallace Pack Unit Inmates' Class Action OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Banks and Mike Glenn, writing for Houston Chronicle, report that more than 1,400 state prison inmates -- mostly elderly and disabled at the Wallace Pack Unit in Grimes County -- will be included in a federal lawsuit that claims they are suffering "cruel and unusual" punishment by enduring extreme summer heat behind bars without air conditioning, a judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison granted class-action status on June 14 to a lawsuit filed by six inmates at the Pack Unit, saying the suit will include the general prison population at the Pack Unit as well as inmates who are heat-sensitive or disabled. The class-action status means the state must face the possibility of "really having to solve the problem for everyone at the prison," said Scott Medlock, one of the attorneys for the Pack Unit inmates. The case will not directly impact inmates at other state prisons, but it could set a precedent for future cases, Mr. Medlock said. State prison officials said in written statement that they will appeal the judge's decision. "The Texas Department of Criminal Justice takes extensive precautions both with our staff and the offender population at all facilities including the Pack Unit to help mitigate temperature extremes," according to the statement emailed to the Chronicle. "Their well-being is a top priority for this agency, and we remain committed to making sure everyone is safe whether it's hot or cold outside." The suit was filed in 2014 after a spate of heat-related deaths at state prison facilities in 2011 and 2012. Experts called on behalf of the inmates testified in a hearing earlier about the impact of heat on the body's ability to regulate its temperature. Dr. Michael McGeehin, a former director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified that heat is the No. 1 cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S., and 43 percent of those deaths occur in the South. He said air conditioning is the best remedy. Dr. Susi Vassallo, a physician who specializes in heat exposure, also testified that heat in the prison dormitory in the summer months poses "a substantial risk to the health of any individual under any circumstances held in these kinds of temperatures for prolonged periods of time." The heat index indoors at the Pack Unit in the summer of 2014 went as high as 105 degrees, according to heat monitoring equipment installed there as a result of the lawsuit. State prison officials do not dispute claims that medications or certain conditions such as diabetes, morbid obesity or hypertension put people at a greater risk of heat-related illness. But the medical expert called by the state said the facility is providing ample water and access to fans to help inmates stay cool. The judge dismissed the expert's testimony outright, noting in the sharply worded ruling that her testimony was not credible and appeared to acknowledge only data that substantiated the state's claims. The other experts largely agreed that "all of the inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit are at substantial risk of harm from prolonged exposure to extreme heat," the judge wrote. Texas inmates aren't the only ones seeking relief through the courts because of conditions in the state's prison system. A former TDCJ corrections officer is taking the agency to federal court in a lawsuit filed on June 9. Sam Hulon said he was fired because TDCJ officials would not provide him with "reasonable accommodations" as a person with a disability. He has clinical obesity and is diabetic. Mr. Hulon was assigned to the Stiles Unit in Beaumont. The inmate housing areas there are not air conditioned. Both prisoners and guards have to deal with brutally high temperatures in the summer. During the time he was working in the Stiles Unit, the heat index reached 120 degrees. GROUP O: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Creal" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHELLE CREAL, KASANDRA MURPHY, and FELICIA WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. GROUP O, INC., Defendant, No. 13C4275 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras granted Group O, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, but solely as to Felicia Wright. The motion was otherwise denied. Judge Kocoras also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The case is set for pretrial conference on June 30, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. A full-text copy of Judge Kocoras's June 8, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/J4fMcf from Leagle.com. Michelle Creal, Kasandra Murphy, and Felicia Wright filed the three-count action in June 2013 against Group O under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq. (Count I) and similar Illinois wage laws (Counts II and III). The plaintiffs challenged Group O's "practice of rounding employees' swipe-in and swipe out times" and sought overtime pay for work allegedly performed before and after their shifts and during unpaid meal periods. Felicia Wright, Kasandra Murphy, Creal Michell, Plaintiffs, represented by Uche O. Asonye, Asonye and Associates, Jessica Judith Fayerman, Fayerman Law, LLC, John A Singer, Asonye & Associates & Vaughn Christopher Ganiyu, Asonye & Associates. Group O, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C. O'Connor -- joconnor@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas Davidson O'Connor & Fildes, P.C., Matthew P. Pappas -- mpappas@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas, Davidson, O'Connor & Fildes, P.C. & Brian Dean Ekstrom -- bekstrom@pappasoconnor.com -- Pappas Davidson O'Connor & Fildes P.C.. GS ENGINEERING: Korean Investors File Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Kim Ji-hyun, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that investors have filed a class-action suit against GS Engineering & Construction for allegedly concealing losses. According to law firm Hannuri, the nation's highest court confirmed a lower court ruling allowing 15 people who invested in the construction arm of GS Group to file a class-action suit. GS Group is Korea's seventh-largest conglomerate. The suit is demanding GS to pay for damages worth 46.5 billion won (US$ 39.5 million) to 10,399 investors. In 2013, GS failed to disclose investment risks when it applied to the Financial Supervisory Service to issue 380 billion won worth of corporate bonds. Two days later, it was discovered that the firm's operating profit for 2012 had fallen by 64.8 percent. HALLIBURTON CO: New Plaintiffs Can't Join Perchlorate Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a group of 82 plaintiffs alleging that perchlorate migrating from a Halliburton facility contaminated their properties won't be added to a putative class action, the Western District of Oklahoma said McCormick v. Halliburton Co., W.D. Okla., No. 11-cv-01272, 6/8/16). The new plaintiffs must file a separate action because their claims differ in several respects from those of the pending plaintiffs, the court said. All but one of the new plaintiffs own residential properties, while the three remaining property damage plaintiffs in the case own large commercial properties, the court said. In addition, several of the new plaintiffs purchased their properties after the contamination issue was publicly announced, the court said. Also, most of the new plaintiffs didn't drink well water but were on public water, whereas most of the previous residential plaintiffs were on well water. The new plaintiffs may also be pursuing some additional legal theories in their case, the court said. The original complaint was filed on October 31, 2011. The court denied class certification on March 3, 2015. The cases have not been consolidated, but are coordinated for discovery purposes. The plaintiffs filed the motion to amend on April 12, 2016. The same counsel has filed a separate complaint against Halliburton over the contamination on behalf of another group of plaintiffs in Alexander v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., W.D. Okla., No. 11-cv-1343 (31 TXLR 499, 5/26/16). Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued the ruling. Plaintiffs' attorneys include Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. in New York and Leach & Sullivan LLP in Duncan, Okla. King & Spalding in Atlanta and Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green in Oklahoma City represent Halliburton and related companies. HORNBLOWER NEW YORK: Class Action Over Withheld Tips Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that dinner cruise line Hornblower New York LLC must face a class action by waitstaff who claim they never received distributions from a service fee the company charged. In a decision dated on June 13, Justice Carol Edmead of New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan granted class action status to temporary and full-time servers, bartenders and other waitstaff who worked at Hornblower. She also denied a motion for summary judgment by the company. INT'L BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Vacation Pay Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory V. Mersol, Esq., of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that most California employers know that California treats vacation pay largely as a vested benefit that cannot ordinarily be "forfeited." In common parlance, the state prohibits "use it or lose it" policies. To prevent employees from accruing, or claiming to have accrued, large amounts of vacation time, most California employers have a policy that states that employees cease to accrue time once they have hit a set maximum. This neatly avoids the "forfeiture" problem because the employees simply stop accruing time and forfeit nothing. Like many national employers, IBM had such a policy that was specifically directed to California and was different from the policy that applied in other states. Despite having such a policy, the company found itself a defendant in the Northern District of California in a class action contending that it, in fact, was applying a "use it or lose it" policy in that state. Reznik v. International Business Machines, Inc., Case No. 15-cv- 02419-YGR (June 7, 2016). In the Reznik case, the plaintiff worked for IBM beginning in 2012 and went on a long-term disability leave and was ultimately terminated. He contended that before going on the leave he had accrued 21 days of vacation and personal leave time and that IBM had somehow failed to pay it to him. He relied on a PowerPoint slide he claimed to have seen during orientation that stated that vacation time could be lost, and thus contended that the company violated California law on a classwide basis. It's a novel theory, but the court found that it did not create any claim, for at least two reasons. First, the PowerPoint presentation noted that it contained only a summary of benefits and that the employees should consult the actual underlying policies for their complete terms. Those policies were California compliant. Second, IBM, in fact, paid the plaintiff for all accrued time and actually four days in addition to that. Thus, even if the employee's claim regarding the policy were true, he was paid everything he claims was owed to him. The Reznik case reflects that at least some courts will look peek into the merits of a case before forcing the parties to undergo class action discovery. In this case, the court spared everyone considerable grief and expense by bringing the case to a close at an early stage. It also reflects a fundamental problem in class litigation. The plaintiff's case was weak both on the law and on the merits, and yet those problems did not serve as an impediment to the plaintiff's seeking to assert class claims, likely bolstered by the Northern District of California's historically pro-plaintiff class action jurisprudence. The bottom line: Some courts, particularly in weaker cases, will reach the merits of the representative plaintiff's claims before forcing the parties to go through class action litigation. INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Seeks Dismissal of Customer Suit in Conn. -------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Companyhas fileda motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by a customer. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss it. Among other things, the Company's customer agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant broker-dealers broad discretion to close out margin- deficient customer accounts for the broker's protection. Further, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff. JBG EDUCATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Travel Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mattes v. JBG Educational Group Inc. and Jamie Beth Rodriguez, Case No. 1681CV01649 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all current and former in-home tutors and writing coaches, alleging that the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay compensable intra-day commuting time and associated travel expenses. Based out of Dover, Massachusetts, JBG Educational Group Inc. provides tutoring services in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq. Michael T. Marshall, Esq. FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN, LLC 189 Wells Avenue Newton, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 393-7603 E-mail: mtm@fogelmanlawfirm.com JPMORGAN CHASE: "Nypl" Case Consolidated with Forex Case -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOHN NYPL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 9300 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofeld denied the defendants' motion as to the request for a stay of the case, but granted the motion in part with respect to the consolidation of the case with a related case, In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation ("FOREX"), No. 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Schofeld's June 8, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/zceg5P from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs are six individuals and businesses asserting injuries on behalf of a putative class of those who paid more in bank foreigh currency exchange rates due to the defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix rates. Lisa McCarthy, Mad Travel, Inc., Valarie Jolly, Go Everywhere, Inc., William Rubinsohn, John Nypl, Plaintiffs, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Lingel H. Winters Prof. Corp., pro hac vice, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, Jeffrey Jason Resetarits -- jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, Richard Franklin Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP & Stephen D. Hibbard, Shearman & Sterling LLP. HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., HSBC North American Holdings Inc., HSBC Holdings p.l.c., Defendants, represented by Edwin R Deyoung -- edeyoung@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin -- jmgoodin@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Regina Jill McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento -- gcasamento@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Roger Brian Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP. Royal Bank of Scotland, Defendant, represented by Joel Murray Cohen -- joel.cohen@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Melissa C. King -- melissa.king@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk Wardwell LLP, Jennifer Kan -- jennifer.kan@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Micah Galvin Block -- micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP & Neal Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, Boris Bershteyn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Douglas Allen Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP. J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Boris Bershteyn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Douglas Allen Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP. Citigroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP. UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Indraneel Sur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, David Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Melanie L. Katsur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Seth Paris, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, John Darrow Echeverria, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Kathleen Suzanne McArthur, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,Matthew Alexander Schwartz, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Douglas Allen Smith, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP & Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp. Haverhill Retirement System, et al., Interested Party, represented by Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP. JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown Appeals Order Approving $150-Mil. Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:12-cv-03852-GBD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 4, 2016, a notice was filed with the District Court regarding a proposed $150 million class settlement in the Case. The notice was addressed to all persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the period from April 13, 2012, through May 21, 2012, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. On May 10, 2016, the District Court granted final approval to the settlement and rejected two objections raised. Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 21% of the Settlement Fund and $1,537,671.14 in reimbursement of Plaintiffs' Counsel's litigation expenses, which fees and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. Lead Plaintiff Ohio Public Employee Retirement System is awarded $18,212.80 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class. Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is awarded $3,355.40 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class. Lead Plaintiff State of Oregon by and through the Oregon State Treasurer on behalf of the Common School Fund and, together with the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board, on behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund is awarded $14,557.81 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class. Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden is awarded $11,789.00 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class. The appellate case is captioned as In re: JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 16-1859, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information on the case and the settlement is available at http://www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com/ A copy of the Final Settlement Approval Order is available at https://is.gd/57QUyk A copy of the May 10 Order approving Lead Plaintiffs' proposed plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is available at https://is.gd/b8ZCdG A copy of the May 10 Order awarding fees and costs to Plaintiffs' Counsel is available at https://is.gd/PDbFa5 Objector-Appellant Jeff M. Brown is represented by: Jeff M. Brown, Esq. LAVALLE, BROWN & RONAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 395-0000 E-mail: jbrown@lavallebrown.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Sjunde Ap-Fonden, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, State of Oregon and Public Pension Funds are represented by: Salvatore Graziano, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1538 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee David Smith is represented by: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co., James Dimon, and Douglas L. Braunstein are represented by: Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3493 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employee Plan Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Roscoe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd., Benefit Management Solutions, Inc., Cigna Medical Insurance Plan, AIG Short-Term Disability Plan, William Spencer, Thomas Spencer, Joseph Bosley, and John Doe Defendants #1-25, Case No. 7:16-cv- 04294 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all Land Air Express of New England's employees and the dependents of those employees who participated in one or more of Defendant Land-Air's employee welfare benefit plans and for which Defendant Land-Air did not remit Employee premiums to the Plans' providers. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd. operates a trucking company which maintains multiple locations within the state of New York. Cigna Medical Insurance Plan operates a health insurance service company that offers health, dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare plans to individuals, families and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP. 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 908-6709 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com LIBERTY POWER: BLT Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned BLT STEAK LLC and BLT FISH LLC, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY POWER CORP, L.L.C., d/b/a LIBERTY POWER NEW YORK, and LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Docket No. 151293/13, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y.), the Supreme Court of New York County granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/N1fjmA from Leagle.com. BLT Steak LLC and BLT Fish LLC have sought damages from Liberty Power for selling them electricity at allegedly inflated prices. The sole surviving cause of action in BLT's first amended complaint is their claim for breach of contract. BLT then moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to file and serve a proposed second amended complaint, converting their lawsuit to a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated customers of defendants. The proposed second amended complaint contains essentially the same factual allegations as the first amended complaint, and asserts the same legal theory in its sole cause of action for breach of contract. LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE: Chambers Class Certification Bid Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. John A. Harvey denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled PATSY CHAMBERS and ROBERT GEHRKING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, the Defendant, Case No. 4:11-cv-00579-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa). The Court says the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) to certify either Plaintiffs' proposed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) class or Plaintiffs' proposed senior subclass. The Court finds that any inquiry into either Plaintiffs' RICO claims or Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim requires individualized inquiry such that common questions of fact and law do not predominate over individual questions and that treatment of all of Plaintiffs' putative class members' claims in a class action lawsuit would be unmanageable. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DOvDq8iJ LIFELOCK INC: Final Approval Hearing Today on Ebarle Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing on final approval of the settlement of the Ebarle class action lawsuit is scheduled for June 23, 2016. On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and seek declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff, Brian Litton, adding a breach of contract claim, and expanding the class period to include all members enrolled in one of the company's identity theft protection plans since January 1, 2010. On January 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval conditionally approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement and allowing plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint naming Reiner Jerome Ebarle as an additional plaintiff. On February 11, 2016, the court overseeing the FTC Action entered an order allowing the $68 million to be transferred from the court's registry to the court-ordered settlement administrator in the Ebarle Class Action to fund the settlement. Notice has been sent to the class members. The deadline for class members to object was April 14, 2016, and the deadline for class members to submit claims is April 29, 2016. A hearing on final approval is scheduled for June 23, 2016. "As of March 31, 2016 we have $13.0 million accrued for settlement of this claim, which was not included within the $100 million settlement paid to the FTC for settlement of the FTC Contempt Action and nationwide class action claims. In addition, we have $3.0 million accrued for a potential settlement with states attorneys general for related claims," the Company said. LIFELOCK INC: Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Case Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan R Bolton has taken under advisement Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, Avila v. LifeLock Incorporated et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01398 (D. Ariz.). A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Miguel Avila was held May 2, 2016. LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleges that Todd Davis, Christopher Power, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about our business, operations, and prospects, including with regard to our information security program, advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson, and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class action. On October 9, 2015, the Court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On October 19, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which, and consistent with that order, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 10, 2015. The Company, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 29, 2016. Lead plaintiffs moved to lift a statutory discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21, 2016. The Company, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, opposed that motion on February 8, 2016. On April 22, 2016, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs Miguel Avila, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System are represented by: Carol C Villegas, Esq. Christopher J Keller, Esq. James W Johnson, Esq. Michael W Stocker,. Esq. Natalie M Mackiel, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0824 Fax: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com ckeller@labaton.com jjohnson@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com nmackiel@labaton.com - and - Joseph R Seidman , Jr., Esq. Peter J Harrington, Esq. Stanley D Bernstein, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 E 40th St., 29th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 779-1414 Fax: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: Seidman@bernlieb.com pharrington@bernlieb.com bernstein@bernlieb.com Defendants LifeLock Incorporated et al. are represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Elizabeth Catherine Peterson, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Tel: (650) 858-4444 Fax: (650) 493-6811 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com epeterson@wsgr.com - and - Cynthia Ann Ricketts, Esq. Natalya Ter-Grigoryan, Esq. Sacks Ricketts & Case LLP 2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1230 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Tel: (602) 385-3370 Fax: (602) 385-3371 E-mail: cricketts@srclaw.com nter-grigoryan@srclaw.com - and - Gideon A Schor, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 999-7700 Fax: (212) 999-5899 E-mail: gschor@wsgr.com LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument Not Yet Set by Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument on the appeal in the securities class action has not been set by the Ninth Circuit. The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, against us, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the complaints into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated Amended Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive (the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms. Schneider, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. "On September 15, 2014, we, along with our President, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint which contained similar allegations, but no longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant. On January 30, 2015, we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 21, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and entered judgment in our favor. "On August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another shareholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power opposed plaintiffs' motion. "On September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file another complaint. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appeal from the lower court's July 21, 2015 order dismissing the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering judgment in our favor, and the court's September 18, 2015 order denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of the appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the Ninth Circuit." LONG BEACH, CA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marquez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Marquez and Jasmine Smith, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Long Beach, Case No. BC623334 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Pages and Recreation Leader Specialists overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. City of Long Beach is a charter city organized in accordance with the laws of California and the Long Beach Municipal Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Caroline N. Cohen, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounse1.net drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net ccohen@unioncounsel.net - and - Lisl R. Soto, Esq. Sean D. Graham, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1320 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 380-2344 Facsimile: (213) 443-5098 E-mail: lacourtnotices@unioncounse1.net Isoto@unioncounsel.net sgraham@unioncounsel.net LYFT INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide 60 Days Termination Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Thornton, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-03135 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide employees 60 days' notice before termination. Lyft, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based car service promoting itself as a transportation networking company ("TNC"). The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK & DAVIS, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 Facsimile: (512) 795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com - and - Thomas J. Brandi, Esq. Brian J. Malloy, Esq. THE BRANDI LAW FIRM 354 Pine Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 989-1800 E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com bjm@brandilaw.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adalberto Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marketsource, Inc. which will do business in California as Maryland Marketsource, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC623346 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Marketsource, Inc. is in the business of providing its clients with outsourced sales support. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney Mesr1ani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 921-7056 Facsimile: (323) 962-3668 E-mail: nfo@lebelaw.com MASSAGE ENVY: Faces New Class Action Over Prepaid Massages ---------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that facing another class action lawsuit over pre-paid massages, Massage Envy will let court records speak for it. A recent lawsuit filed by six plaintiffs says the company forces customers to pay for new massages before previous, unused massages can be used. When asked for a comment on the case, Massage Envy spokesman Kendall Huber told Legal Newsline, "We are not able to comment on active litigation at this time." Last year, Massage Envy offered to settle a separate class action lawsuit. The proposed settlement would reinstate about 75 percent of massages that were not used before members terminated their contracts. The company also offered to pay $8 million as part of that settlement. The company could benefit from the type of reform enacted in a neighboring state, according to an official from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Arizona Chamber is affiliated with the Arizona Prosperity Project, a non-partisan voter education tool that lists tort reform among its areas of focus. In 2013, Arizona passed a tort reform law in the state that allows an interlocutory appeals process. Through this process, class standing can be determined early in a case. Defendants can appeal the granting of class certification. If class status is ultimately not granted through an interlocutory appeal, the time and expense of a trial can be eliminated. "(Class-action lawsuits) are expensive and time consuming," Garrick Taylor, the Arizona Chamber's senior vice president of government relations and communications, told Legal Newsline. "Having the ability to determine (class status) earlier in the process, rather than later, would be to everyone's advantage." In the Massage Envy case, the plaintiffs say they are looking "to remedy defendant's unfair, deceptive and unconscionable business practice of forfeiting pre-paid massages that is uniformly applied in all of its customer contracts." The plaintiffs, specifically, are asking the court to reinstitute or reinstate the allegedly forfeited massages. The plaintiffs said in their complaint that the company's prepaid membership fee structure includes one massage per month per member in exchange for payment of roughly $59 per month. If a member cannot use that massage during the monthly payment period, the massage is supposed to roll over, allowing it to be used at a later date, the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiffs allege, however, that Massage Envy slipped a provision into its membership contract that actually requires its customers to buy additional monthly massages before the customers can redeem the carried-over, prepaid service. Also, the plaintiffs allege that members who terminate their contracts with the company or owe an outstanding balance are not able to redeem unused massages, even through the customers previously paid for those massages. Mr. Taylor said settlements are common in class action cases. "Definitely, faced with the specter of that time and expense, and the prospect of losing, (many plaintiffs) choose to settle their claims," he said. MCCLINTON ENERGY: Appeal to 5th Circuit Filed in "Dismuke" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Brian Dismuke filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Dismuke v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 7:16-CV-23 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2016, Brian Dismuke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the District Court seeking to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 10, 2016, Judge Robert A. Junell denied Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. On June 2, the District Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of those Orders. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Dismuke v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 16-50674, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Josh Sanford, 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 Defendants-Appellees MCCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C., SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, and TONY MCCLINTON, Individually and as Officer and Director of McClinton and SWECO, are represented by: Rachel M. Hoffer, Esq. Linda Schoonmaker, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P. 700 Milam Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 225-2300 E-mail: rhoffer@seyfarth.com lschoonmaker@seyfarth.com MCDONALD'S CORP: July 29 ADA Case Prelim. Status Conference Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Chicago has become a destination for out-of-state plaintiffs who wish to file certain Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits, a state civil justice reform group says. A class action lawsuit filed against Illinois-based McDonald's Corp. by a Louisiana man alleges the company's drive-through policy keeps blind people from eating at the restaurant during late-night hours. It was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Travis Akin of the Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch said it is likely "no accident" that Louisiana resident Scott Magee and his New Orleans-based attorneys chose Chicago for the case. "This is a cottage industry," Akin told Legal Newsline. He noted that 77 of the 94 related lawsuits filed in Northern Illinois involved eight plaintiffs and one lawyer. Akin said personal injury lawyers want this trend to grow, but that Illinois citizens should pressure the legislature for reform and stop the trend before it gets out of control. According to the lawsuit, McDonald's offers late-night hours to make its products available to the public for longer periods of time; however, customers in vehicles are only allowed to use the drive-through system during late evening and early morning operating times. Because McDonald's does not allow pedestrians to use the drive- through, "the blind are totally precluded from accessing defendant's products during late night hours," the lawsuit said. Akin said the fact that Chicago is the third-largest media market in the United States could also contribute to the venue choice, with attorneys hoping the publicity will help their plaintiffs' attempts to gain class action status. If Magee's case is successful, Akin said it would be a very interesting development from a legal standpoint, as it "could open up a floodgate" of class actions against other chains and affect other policies, creating "interesting case law." In addition, Akin suggested that the drive-through access issue could be resolved through means other than a lawsuit. He said he is not sure that ADA law actually covers this specific situation, and that many other chains have similar policies in place in an effort to protect their own employees, as well as their customers. Akin said he does not believe it is McDonald's intention to exclude blind customers, or anyone else, from being able to purchase food at their restaurants, and that a solution could come through "a conversation," rather than litigation. Magee's attorney, Roberto Costales, said the lawsuit is about ensuring the equality promoted by the ADA is upheld to allow the disabled to enjoy the same privileges afforded to others. "Mr. Magee -- and millions of blind Americans like him -- are totally precluded from buying a late-night dinner from their local McDonald's," Costales said. "Our firm handles a lot of discrimination cases, and never have we seen such an egregious example of a class of people being denied access to a public place." Costales said Magee is not asking McDonald's to change its food, its service or any other fundamental part of its operation, nor is he asking for an accommodation that would be cost-prohibitive for the company. "This is a case about dignity, equality and respect," Costales said. "We hope this lawsuit causes McDonald's to re-examine its policies and work with us to find a solution that accommodates the millions of blind Americans in this country." Costales said a preliminary status conference is scheduled for July 29 in Chicago. He said he expects McDonald's to bring its thousands of franchisees into the case in an attempt to escape liability. "This would be unfortunate for all of these small business owners, who have no control over McDonald's policies and procedures," Costales said. McDonald's did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. MDL 2284: Court Enjoins Rosses' Michigan State Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter denied the motion filed by Dempster and Gail Ross for "declaratory ruling" on their opt-out status, and granted DuPont motion seeking an injunction barring the Rosses' state court law suit. In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non- target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non- target vegetation, the EPA began investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. In September 2011, DuPont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process, the plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement. On July 13, 2013, the Rosses filed a lawsuit in Jackson County, Michigan, bringing products liability claims against a lawn care operator, Underwood Nursery, and seeking, among other damages, recompense for alleged diminution in their property's value. In November, 2013, the Rosses and Underwood agreed to stay the Michigan action until the district court determined the Rosses' opt-out status. Meanwhile, the parties continued settlement negotiations through the Claims Resolution Process, which included submission of their claims to a panel of arborists that had been designed by the settlement processes. The Rosses' objections to the proffered settlement were eventually rejected by the arborist panel. In the spring of 2015, the Rosses filed an appeal of the arborist panel decision, in which they also contended that they had opted out of the settlement. Unable to discern what, exactly, the Rosses wanted the court to decide, the district court ordered the Rosses to clarify their intentions by filing an appropriate motion. The Rosses then moved for a "declaratory ruling" that they opted out of the settlement and/or that the claims in their state lawsuit for damages relating to the diminution of property value are specifically excluded from the settlement. DuPont opposed the motion and filed its own motion to enjoin the Rosses' Michigan state court action. Judge Pratter found that the Rosses did not opt out of the settlement and because their claims are unambiguously released by the settlement agreement, the judge denied the Rosses' motion. Judge Pratter also concluded that the Rosses have presented no argument as to why the court should not enjoin their Michigan suit. A full-text copy of Judge Pratter's June 15, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/gpbJLa from Leagle.com. MEDPARTNERS: $310MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Kent Faulk, writing for AL.com, reports that a Jefferson County judge has given preliminary approval to a $310 million settlement of a lawsuit that claims MedPartners, a health care company once led by former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, lied to investors about how much the company could pay under a 1990s settlement. Jefferson County Circuit Judge Pat Ballard issued an order June 1 granting preliminary approval of the settlement. He has set an Aug. 8 hearing to determine, among other things, whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and if he should grant final approval. After fees and other administrative costs are deducted, the remainder of the $310 million will be doled out to the investors filing approved claims, according to the settlement. The lawsuit against CVS Caremark Corp., the company that ended up owning the former MedPartners, is a class-action litigation representing about 70,000 investors who claim they lost $3.2 billion in a 1990s securities fraud. Twenty one lawsuits were filed by investors in 1998 against MedPartners. Those lawsuits claimed MedPartners made false and misleading statements to the public about its financial condition and prospects at the time. The lawsuits were combined and settled for $56 million after MedPartners claimed it was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and that $50 million was all its insurance would cover. However, five years later investor John Lauriello, one of the original plaintiffs, filed a new lawsuit claiming MedPartners lied about having limited insurance coverage during the settlement negotiations. The lawsuit claims that in October 1998, prior to the original settlement being finalized, MedPartners paid for unlimited insurance coverage. If the unlimited insurance coverage had been known at the time, Mr. Lauriello's suit claims, investors could have negotiated a higher settlement amount. MedPartners changed its name in 2000 to Caremark and in 2007 merged with CVS. A trial was to have been held this spring, but was postponed and both sides worked out a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement insurance company AIG will pay $230 million and CVS will pay $80 million. In the settlement CVS denies it has any liability for the claims asserted against them and believes it has good defenses to those claims. But the company agreed to enter into the agreement "to eliminate the burdens, distractions, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation and thereby to put this controversy to rest fully and finally by obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice of the Class Action," according to the settlement. CVS issued a statement on June 15 to AL.com regarding the settlement. "This relates to a 1999 settlement of a securities class action by MedPartners, the former parent company of Caremark and is not related in any way to the business practices of CVS Health, which was formed from the merger between CVS and Caremark in 2007," according to the statement from Mike DeAngelis , Senior Director, Corporate Communications CVS Health. "The company denies that its predecessor entity engaged in any wrongdoing and denies any liability in the action," Mr. DeAngelis wrote. "A settlement was reached in order to eliminate the burdens, expenses and uncertainty of continued litigation. We are pleased that the settlement agreement has been preliminarily approved by the court and we look forward to putting this matter behind us." Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, along with North & Associates and attorney John Somerville in Birmingham were appointed as the attorneys to represent the class. The original fraud allegations from the 1990s stemmed from a proposed deal by former MedPartners CEO Larry House for competitor PhyCor Inc. to pay $7 billion to buyout MedPartners. The deal, billed at the time as the biggest deal in Alabama history, fell through after PhyCor found questions about MedPartner's practices and bookkeeping. House had been chief operating officer of HealthSouth at one point before taking over as CEO of MedPartners. Mr. Scrushy, who had also been involved in MedPartner's founding while leading HealthSouth, for a time served on the MedPartner's board and later as its interim CEO. MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Settlement Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has granted final approval to the class action settlement. Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the trading price of the Company's stock declined and several putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 17, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the consolidated case in its entirety. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court on November 18, 2015 and preliminarily approved by the Court on November 19, 2015. The final settlement hearing was held on April 5, 2016 and the Court approved the settlement. The Company does not believe the terms of the settlement will have a material adverse effect on its operating results or financial condition. NAVY FEDERAL: Aug. 12 Hearing on Renewed Settlement Approval Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action lawsuit styled Ronald Munday, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Navy Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-01629-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), filed a renewed joint motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement. A hearing on the Renewed Motion is set for Aug. 12, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. The parties also request that the Court: (1) appoint the Plaintiff as the Settlement Class Representative; (2) appoint Sergei Lemberg and Stephen F. Taylor of Lemberg Law, LLC as Class Counsel; (3) appoint A.B. Data, Ltd. to serve as the Settlement Administrator. (4) preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (5) approve the form, content and method of delivering notice to the Settlement Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement as "the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)); and (6) schedule a final approval hearing in accordance with the deadlines proposed in the Settlement Agreement. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Josephine L. Staton in May 2016 denied the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Staton, however, granted the parties leave to again seek for preliminary approval should they reach a settlement agreement that cures the deficiencies identified in the Order. Judge Staton ordered that by June 24, 2016, (a) the parties must file a renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement that cures the deficiencies or, if no motion will be filed, (b) the Defendant must file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The Renewed Motion was filed June 13. On October 9, 2015, Ronald Munday filed a class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief for allegedly knowing and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to the Plaintiff and other members of the class without their prior express consent. The parties agreed to participate in mediation to resolve the action. The proposed settlement provides for a non- reversionary gross settlement fund of $2,750,000. The Renewed Motion requests that for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons whom Navy Federal called on their cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system between October 9, 2011 through the date of Preliminary Approval where the result of the call was that Navy Federal coded the number as a "wrong number" in its records based on information provided by the call recipient." A copy of the Notice of Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XsPfsldh A copy of the Proposed Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i2INsjbB The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen F Taylor, Esq. Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road WILTON, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com staylor@lemberglaw.com tkent@lemberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by Neil K. Gilman, Esq. Jason J. Kim, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20037-1701 Telephone: (202) 955-1500 Facsimile: (202) 778-2201 E-mail: ngilman@hunton.com kimj@hunton.com NESCO SERVICE: Class Certification Bid in "St. John" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT ST. JOHN, the Plaintiff, v. NESCO SERVICE CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253 (S.D. Tex.), Hon. Alfred H. Bennett denied Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment. The lawsuit seeks payment for unpaid overtime. St. John moved to certify a class of pipeline inspectors. Nesco is a staffing agency. According to the Court, Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be denied because no one else has expressed an interest in opting into the lawsuit. The Court also denied Nesco's motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff's position as a pipeline inspector -- whether he inspects welds or utilities -- does not strike the Court as an administrative one. Nesco characterizes Plaintiff's work as administrative because he supervised other contractors' performance. At a minimum, a factual question exists as to how much of St. John's work was administrative and how much of it was not. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qTC8e5hw NETFLIX: Two Workers Mull Class Action Over Employment Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Martha C. White, writing for Money, reports that getting paid to watch movies might seem like a pretty sweet gig, but two people who worked for Netflix are now suing the streaming-media giant, claiming that the company misclassified them as contractors rather than employees so it wouldn't have to pay them time-and-a-half for the long workweeks they incurred. The two workers, who are aiming for class-action status, were part of "Project Beetlejuice," according to The Hollywood Reporter. These people (Netflix doesn't say how many it works with) get paid $10 a pop to watch movies and pick out the best stills and video clips for Netflix to use. The issue, of course, is that a movie can run two or three hours in length, which -- if you do the math -- means these film buffs aren't making a lot per hour for their services. Netflix had classified them as independent contractors, but the litigation contends that they were treated more like employees, but without the benefits of regular employment. "They're also asking for overtime, paid vacation, and holidays, health insurance, and a 401(k) plan," Business Insider said. NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 14 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit against New Prime, Inc. on behalf of the company's California truck drivers alleging that the transportation company devised an illegal scheme of classifying the truck drivers as independent contractors in order to avoid paying their share of payroll taxes and other business related expenses. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Tulare County Superior Court as Case No. 265373. The class action complaint filed by the Sacramento labor attorneys alleges that New Prime, Inc. hires workers to drive trucks in order to provide transportation services for the company but claims that New Prime devised an illegal scheme of classifying the employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying for all time worked. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the company had the authority to exercise control over the work performed and the manner and means in which the work was performed. The class action lawsuit alleges that the company controlled every critical aspect of New Prime, Inc.'s daily transportation operations in that the company allegedly provided the customer, the haul, the route, and instructions to its truck drivers as to where to deliver the haul and deadlines for delivery. Further, the pending lawsuit alleges that the company misclassified their truck driver as independent contractors and furthermore claims that the truck drivers were charged fees, and had deductions from their wages for various purposes, including but allegedly not limited to, for goods, materials, services, government licenses, repairs, equipment maintenance, and/or fines arising from the truck drivers' employment with New Prime, Inc. The Complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of California's meal and rest break laws. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik represents many California employees in lawsuits involving various California Labor Code violations. Their employment attorneys understand the uphill battle employees face in order to fight back against big companies that engage in illegal workplace conduct. The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik represent many employees in California wage violation lawsuits who have been forced to work uncompensated hours. With labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Chicago, the labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping employees protect and enforce their rights against some of the world's largest corporations. NEW SEABURY: Membership Deadline Pushed Back Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Sean F. Driscoll, writing for Cape Code Times, reports that a June 15 deadline for New Seabury members to choose a new membership tier has been pushed back a month while the club and a members' rights committee try to work out their differences, according to a statement issued by both sides on June 13. Both sides met and decided it was "worthwhile" to continue discussions, according to the statement. Residents who have not decided on a new membership category now have until July 15 to do so. New Seabury Properties, a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises, a Delaware-based holding company, is trying to consolidate more than 30 types of member contracts into six categories that offer a range of access to its facilities. Residents allege that, in some cases, the new dues structure would increase their costs by 20 to 30 percent, more than six times the typical annual increase. The battle over new membership levels has spilled out of the upscale Mashpee community and into federal bankruptcy court, where members recently won the right to fight the changes as part of a 1997 bankruptcy case. Residents are now seeking to get the dispute certified as a class-action case, but court proceedings are on hold during negotiations. NEW YORK: Assistant State AG Disputes Court Backlog Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs in a class action suit against New York's court system claiming that long delays and backlogs in Bronx Criminal Court are violating their rights lack standing to bring the suit because there are currently no pending charges against them, a government attorney said on June 15. "They haven't suffered any injury," said Assistant Attorney General Alissa Wright, who appeared before a federal judge on behalf of the Office of Court Administration, in a pretrial conference. "There's no case or controversy here." Ms. Wright said lack of standing will be one plank of a forthcoming filing for a motion to dismiss the suit, Trowbridge v. Cuomo, 16-cv-3455, which was filed in May by The Bronx Defenders on behalf of four plaintiffs claiming violations of their constitutional rights to due process and speedy trial. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they are "extremely likely" to be arrested, charged and prosecuted for misdemeanors or lesser offenses in Bronx Criminal Court for various reasons. For example, plaintiff Michael Torres, a glazier who says he lost a construction job after he had to take time off from work to appear for 14 court dates for a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, carries a folding knife that he uses to cut away loose sealant when installing windows, which leaves him vulnerable to getting arrested for violating a law against carrying gravity knives. Additionally, Mr. Torres, whose marijuana charge was dropped 877 days after arraignment, is made further vulnerable to arrest by the fact that his job requires him drive to remote job sites not accessible by public transit. His driver's license has been suspended. Scott Levy, director of the fundamental fairness project at The Bronx Defenders, said at the conference that such circumstances for his clients make it likely that "they will be brought back into the system some time in the future." According to the suit, there were 45,929 people arraigned on misdemeanor charges in the Bronx in 2015, and 12,445 cases were still pending by year's end. As of December 2013, the last time citywide data was available, the Bronx had 2,106 misdemeanor cases pending for more than a year, which was more than all four other boroughs combined: Brooklyn had 657 pending misdemeanors; Manhattan had 594; Queens had more than 300; and Staten Island had about 275. Ms. Wright also told Southern District Judge George Daniels that the government will argue that plaintiffs' claims fall under the Younger abstention doctrine, based on the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, which instructs federal courts to refrain from hearing constitutional challenges to state action when federal action would be regarded as an improper intrusion on the state's authority to enforce its laws in its own courts. Ms. Wright said the motion will be filed by June 30. Assistant Attorney General Michelle Lambert also appeared at the conference. In addition to Mr. Levy, the plaintiffs are also represented by Morrison & Foerster partners Gary Lee -- glee@mofo.com -- and Ruti Smithline -- rsmithline@mofo.com -- senior pro bono counsel Jennifer Brown and associates Katie Viggiani and James Newton; Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady partners Matthew Brinckerhoff and Ilann Maazel and associate Douglas Lieb. OZ MINERALS: Settles Merger Class Action for $24 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Valerina Changarathil, writing for The Advertiser, reports that OZ Minerals will pay $24 million to settle a third class action lawsuit related to the 2008 merger of Oxiana and Zinifex, which resulted in its formation. The action was brought against Prominent Hill copper-gold miner OZ Minerals in February 2014 by ACA Lawyers on behalf of former Zinifex shareholders who alleged they were misled over the true financial position of Oxiana in the lead up to the merger. The total settlement amount is $32.5 million with the remaining $8.5 million to be paid by the other respondents related to the merger transaction. "The settlement is without admission of liability by OZ Minerals and its related entities and is subject to court approval," OZ said in a statement. "The settlement was agreed to avoid the litigation risk and significant expense of a lengthy trial and to enable OZ Minerals to focus on growing shareholder value," the group said. With the settlement expected to occur this financial year, the payment will be recognized in the second half of its 2016 financial year results. In 2011, OZ paid $60 million to settle two separate class action lawsuits. Plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn, backed by IMF Australia, which brought its claim against OZ Minerals for breaching continuous disclosure laws settled for $39 million while Slater & Gordon, who initiated legal action on behalf of 140 retail investors, settled for $21 million. Shares in OZ Minerals closed in the red, down nearly four per cent at $5.35. PHARMACARE US: Spokeo Ruling Impacts Class Certification Decision ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology reports that that even if courts, post-Spokeo, give Congress wide latitude to define a compensable "injury," courts should not certify classes that include people who did not suffer that injury. As an example, just because Congress can determine that the annoyance of receiving an unwanted phone call can entitle the recipient to a statutory penalty, someone who wasn't home to hear the phone ring shouldn't be included in a class." The June 10 decision in Sandoval v. Pharmacare US, Inc., No. 15- cv-0738-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), is a promising example of Spokeo's impact on class certification. Pharmacare sold a dietary supplement called "IntenseX," advertised to enhance sexual power and performance. The named plaintiffs purchased IntenseX , contend it didn't deliver the promised sexual punch, and sued under California's unfair competition and false advertising laws (among other claims), purporting to represent a class of "[a]ll persons in the United States . . . who purchased IntenseX for personal, family, or household use . . . since January 1, 2004." The proposed class had a ton of problems, including that the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the product universally did not and could not have delivered the promised benefits. Predominance therefore was lacking. The court also rejected out-of-hand the plaintiffs' attempt to certify a nationwide class. After denying class certification for those well-established reasons, the court then went out of its way to address Spokeo. Among Pharmacare's defenses was that some class members "were not dissatisfied, were not harmed, or have no viable claim." Some class members received the benefits they expected, were not exposed to the allegedly false claims at issue in the case, previously received a refund, or bought the product outside the applicable statute of limitations. The court said that "[t]he Ninth Circuit has been inconsistent about whether [all] absent class members, as opposed to only the named plaintiff, must have standing." It then suggested that Spokeo should impact this issue, precluding classes that encompass uninjured persons who, post-Spokeo, lack standing. The court did not firmly decide the Spokeo question, saying only that "[w]hether characterized as problems with overbreadth, commonality, typicality, or Article III standing . . . the class includes consumers who have no cognizable injury," and therefore could not be certified. The court then citedSpokeo as support for that holding. PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Proposed Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Will Racke, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports that Pinnacle Financial Partners and Avenue Financial Holdings have agreed in principle to a settlement with the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the companies' proposed merger, potentially clearing the way for a $200 million deal that will combine two of Nashville' biggest local banks. According to a Securities and Exchange Commission report filed on June 13 by Pinnacle, both banks signed a memorandum of understanding with lead plaintiff Stephen Bushansky that establishes terms of the settlement and makes additional disclosures to the SEC about internal discussions and negotiations in the run-up to the deal's announcement. Mr. Bushansky had sought class-action status for his suit. A spokesperson for Pinnacle could not immediately clarify whether the agreement includes potential monetary terms. As the Nashville Business Journal previously reported, the lawsuit alleged that Avenue breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders by agreeing to an inadequate sale price. The plaintiffs also claimed that Avenue's board didn't open bidding or contact other interested parties to negotiate a better offer than Pinnacle's. Both companies have said the claims are without merit and have denied any wrongdoing or liability. Such lawsuits often follow in the wake of merger announcements; mr. Bushansky has himself been the lead plaintiff in a number of similar suits nationwide. The supplemental SEC disclosures provide more information about the negotiation process and meetings with investment banking firm Keefe Bruyette & Woods, which is Avenue's financial advisor on the merger. New information added to the May 16 proxy statement includes: Prior to coming on as Avenue's advisor on the merger deal, KBW disclosed to the bank's board of directors that personnel who were to provide services to Avenue had previously consulted with Pinnacle management about a potential deal to acquire Avenue. KBW also told Avenue that one of the deal's team members owned 10,000 shares of its common stock. Avenue asserted that Pinnacle did not have a hand in the preparation of Avenue's financial projections and that performance estimates were prepared in good faith based on the best information available to Avenue's management at the time. POLYCOM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 15 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on June 8, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of Polycom, Inc. ("Polycom") against its Board of Directors, Mitel Networks Corporation ("Mitel") and Meteor Two, Inc. for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Polycom Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy Statement The action arises out of an April 15, 2016 press release announcing that Polycom had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Mitel pursuant to which Mitel would acquire Polycom for $3.12 per share in cash and 1.31 Mitel common shares for each share of Polycom stock, for total consideration of $1.96 billion (the "Proposed Acquisition"). The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated Polycom shareholders (the "Class"). The named plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP. The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Polycom shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Acquisition. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Polycom stock on, or prior to, the April 15, 2016 announcement of the Proposed Acquisition, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from June 14, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at info@robbinsarroyo.com Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- represents individual and institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions. PORSCHE CARS: Obtains Favorable Ruling on Authorization Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. -- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- and Michel Gagne, Esq. -- jgage@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in Frank-Fort Construction inc. v. Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., the Quebec Superior Court (Justice Donald Bisson) recently ruled on an Application to be relieved of default for failing to file an Answer to a Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action within the prescribed 15- day time limit. Filing of an Answer is the equivalent of filing an Appearance under the New Code of Civil Procedure ("new CCP") in force in Quebec since January 1, 2016. The authorization motion was filed on November 10, 2015 and served on the last Respondent on November 17, 2015. Under the new CCP, the deadline to file an Answer is 15 days after being served with the motion. As none of the four Respondents had filed an Answer, on December 11, 2015, the Petitioner filed for Default Judgment. Although a Default Judgment filing is highly unusual in class actions proceedings, it remains available to the Petitioner. The authorization motion was heard ex parte in February 2016 (Justice Pierre C. Gagnon). On February 23, 2016, while the matter was under advisement, counsel for the Respondents wrote to Justice Gagnon asking that a new authorization hearing take place. The Respondents filed their Answers on the same day. Justice Gagnon, a former partner at the firm representing three of the four Respondents, recused himself and agreed to simply not render a decision on the ex parte authorization hearing. In March 2016, the Respondents filed applications to be relieved from the default of having filed an Answer. Seized with the Respondents' motion, the new judge, Justice Bisson, held that the 15-day time limit to file an Answer is not a strict one and therefore the Respondents did not have to demonstrate that it was impossible for them to act sooner. Justice Bisson held that where an Answer is not filed within the time limit the question before the Court is whether the Court should extend the time period for the Respondents to file the Answer, pursuant to article 84 of the new CCP. Justice Bisson held that an extension of time should be granted and relieved the Respondents from their default. Justice Bisson held that (i) the balance of convenience was in the Respondents' favor; (ii) the Respondents had a serious defense to present against the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action; (iii) refusing to relieve the Respondents from their default would violate their fundamental right to be heard (audi alteram partem); (iv) it was in the interest of justice that a contradictory debate take place on the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action; and (v) it was reasonable not to file an Answer before the validity of the service of the Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action could be confirmed. Despite this favorable judgment, any Respondent to a Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action should keep in mind that the deadline to file an Answer is 15 days after being served with an authorization motion. Respondents should comply with this deadline in order to avoid the hassle and legal costs related to Default Judgement proceedings and a potential ex parte judgment authorizing the bringing of a class action. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: "Hsu" Case Still Pending in C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et. al. On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard oral argument on March 14, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a California man has dished out a potential class action lawsuit against Quaker Oats, alleging the maker of popular breakfast foods should pay because it doesn't include enough real maple in its maple-flavored oatmeal to satisfy consumer law. Kevin Phung, of San Diego, filed a putative class action on June 14 in Chicago federal court against Chicago-based Quaker, alleging the company's Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal contains neither maple syrup nor maple sugar, and therefore the product name is "false, misleading and deceptive." Maple, Mr. Phung contends is "a natural sweetener . . . generally recognized as a healthier and more nutritious alternative to other sweeteners." He said he bought the oatmeal about once every two months from, among other places, a Rite Aid store near his home. He learned of the maple void from news reports and said he has not purchased the oatmeal since the revelation. According to Mr. Phung's complaint, Quaker first offered its maple and brown sugar flavored oatmeal in 1970. Starting in 1995, Quaker "embraced a strategy of marketing its oatmeal products as healthy (and) claims its products were the first to receive FDA approval for food-specific health claims in 1997," the lawsuit said. Further, the complaint, which detailed the nature of maple syrup and the process of harvesting maple sap and converting it to syrup. as well as FDA standards for product labeling, noted federal regulators only consider a product to be maple syrup if it contains 66 percent, by weight, soluble solids derived solely from maple tree sap. Quaker markets several products with "maple" in their product names, including Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar High Fiber Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Gluten Free Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Lower Sugar Instant Oatmeal; Maple & Brown Sugar Weight Control Instant Oatmeal; and Maple & Brown Sugar Organic Instant Oatmeal. None of those products, Mr. Phung argued, contain maple. The classic recipe, for example, actually includes only "whole grain rolled oats, sugar, natural and artificial flavor, salt, calcium carbonate, guar gum, caramel color, niacinamide, reduced iron, vitamin A palmitate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, thiamin mononitrate and folic acid." "There is no societal benefit from false advertising, only harm," the complaint said, adding Mr. Phung and other class members "paid for a lower value product that is not what it purports to be," allegedly harming them and unjustly enriching Quaker. Mr. Phung specifically alleged Quaker violated the California state Unfair Competition Law, as well as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, while also breaching express warranty. In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Mr. Phung seeks actual, compensatory, consequential and statutory damages and legal fees. The complaint did not specify how much Mr. Phung believes Quaker Oats should pay for the alleged lack of maple in its oatmeal, but he said he believed the class of additional plaintiffs could include hundreds of people, and damages could top $5 million. Representing Mr. Phung, and hoping to also represent the potential plaintiffs' class, are the firms of Barnow and Associates, of Chicago; Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, of San Diego; the Law Office of Aron D. Robinson, Chicago; Markham Law Firm, of San Diego; Keegan & Baker, of Carlsbad, Calif.; and United Employees Law Group, of Huntington Beach, Calif. REAL TIME: Manrique Class Certification Terminated -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Abel Manrique, the Plaintiff, v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No.: 1:16-cv-02942 (N.D. Ill.), the Clerk of Court made a docket entry that provides that a status hearing and motion hearing were held on June 13, 2016, before the Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, and that Plaintiff's Motions to certify class are terminated without prejudice based upon stipulation by the parties. The Docket Entry provides that response to motion to dismiss is due by July 19, 2016, and reply by July 2, 2016. Status hearing is set for August 30, 2016 at 9:30 am. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4JvZkSue RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage -------------------------------------------------- Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified. The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S. OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan. On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba, South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama mills, and their spouses and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the action. The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified; accordingly, we are not presently able to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter or to reasonably estimate the potential impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements." RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over "This Land" Song --------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the attorneys who fought to free "Happy Birthday" from copyright control have a new target. In Woody Guthrie's iconic folk song, "This Land," he sang, "This land was made for you and me." On Flag Day, the question now comes: Does the song belong to you and me? On June 14, two members of the New York-based band Satorii filed a putative class action lawsuit in New York federal court seeking a judge's nod that the composition is in the public domain and permanently enjoining defendants The Richmond Organization and Ludlow Music from asserting ownership. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein, the same firm that has been litigating public domain battles over "Happy Birthday" and "We Shall Overcome." According to the complaint, when Guthrie wrote the song in the 1940s, he took the melody of a Baptist gospel hymn called the "Fire Song" and wrote lyrics that were then published in a songbook not registered with the Copyright Office. Nevertheless, the 1945 book contained a copyright notice. The lawsuit asserts that if the 28-year copyright term began then, it was never renewed. The lawsuit also states that the lyrics themselves were published without a copyright notice, which under the law at the time, may mean the copyright was divested. Ludlow applied for a registrations in 1956 and 1958, identified Guthrie as the author, but according to the complaint "failed to disclose the fact that the Song had been previously published." The plaintiffs may thus have a few different routes towards establishing that "This Land" doesn't enjoy copyright status, but before the litigation even gets to this level, the fight could be sidetracked by another element. Every attempt to free a work of authorship from copyright control is a bit different. Whereas the "Happy Birthday" dispute turned on whether the publisher really acquired rights to the lyrics and the "We Shall Overcome" lawsuit is primed to explore whether the version registered with the Copyright Office represents a "distinguishable variation" from possibly public domain versions (more on that in a future post), this newest case might have a thing or two to say about other quirks of copyright law -- cover songs and derivatives. Satorii has created a cover version of "This Land" that is available on iTunes, but also has created a different version that uses Guthrie's lyrics but with a different melody. The compulsory license rules allow musicians to record new versions of copyrighted compositions without "chang[ing] the basic melody or fundamental character of the work," meaning that Satorii's latter version could potentially bring a lawsuit from the copyright owner of "This Land" if it was distributed. That is, if it is deemed to be an impermissible derivative instead of a cover song. Then again, courts are only supposed to wade into matters that are "justiciable," meaning where there's a ripe controversy at hand. In the "Happy Birthday" and "We Shall Overcome" cases, the plaintiffs were denied licenses to feature the songs in films, but in this lawsuit, the controversy is more theoretical. Satorii say they "cannot risk releasing" their version of "This Land" that arguably requires permission and also assert they "cannot produce and release a music video of the Song without purchasing a synchronization license," but on the other hand, they fail to allege that they were denied a license nor cite any explicit threat from Ludlow. The closest they come to suggesting Ludlow's potential to interfere is a 12-year-old dispute upon JibJab's creation of a parody of the 2004 election between John Kerry and George W. Bush set to "This Land" music. There, the publisher asserted rights and the case was brought to court before settling. As such, there may be a real question whether a judge takes jurisdiction to determine whether "This Land" is in the public domain or whether the judge dodges a conclusion similar to the way that a Pennsylvania judge earlier this year refused to tackle a public domain fight over the Buck Rogers character. (Satorii paid $45.50 for a mechanical license for the rights to produce and distribute the cover version. The plaintiffs also are arguing the payment was an "involuntary result of Defendants' assertion of a copyright.") These issues could be addressed soon enough. In the meantime, here's the complaint seeking to free "This Land" as well as collect a return of licensing fees and award restitution. RICK'S FRONT DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that an employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Houston employer alleging he was wrongfully terminated and not paid overtime wages. Tim Summers filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on June 3 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against Rick's Front Door Refinishing LLC alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between April 11, 2012, and April 9, he worked for more than 40 hours per week but was not paid any overtime wages. The plaintiff holds Rick's Front Door Refinishing LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay its employees any overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. He also alleges that he was wrongfully terminated after complaining of not receiving overtime wages. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages in an equal amount, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Joe Williams of The Law Offices of Joe M. Williams & Associates PLLC in Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-01563 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Call Fee Cut Imminent Amid Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Kelman, writing The Desert Sun, reports that the most expensive fee on calls to Riverside County jails were expected be cut by more than half, easing costs for thousands of families who stay in contact with loved ones behind bars. But a legal battle about the overall cost of calls will continue in federal court. People who want to receive calls from the jails will no longer have to pay a $7.95 fee when they deposit money into an online call account. The fee is being reduced to $3, according to an order from the Federal Communications Commission, which takes effect on June 13. The order will also erase several other nickel-and-dime fees that are tacked onto bills at the end of every call and every month. The lower fees will be an overdue relief for county residents like Jackie Zapata, 60, of Temecula, who receives calls three times a week from her son in the Murrieta jail. Ms. Zapata deposits money in her jail call account whenever she can spare some cash, then watches the deposit fee drain the money away. Once, she paid the $7.95 fee to deposit only $15. "It's outrageous, but the changes are fantastic," Ms. Zapata said. "There are a lot of people who can't afford all these fees. Maybe it will make the difference." This fee reduction comes at a time when Riverside County is being targeted by a far-reaching class-action lawsuit over the cost of jail calls. A series of lawsuits accuse Riverside and four other counties -- Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and San Bernardino -- of allowing phone companies to gouge inmate families with high rates and frivolous fees in return for lucrative payments. The FCC order is not a result of the lawsuit, but it should provide some relief to the families represented in the suit. Riverside County's jail call system is run by Securus, the nation's second-largest prison phone company, which negotiated an exclusive contract with county officials in 2015. In return, Securus pays the county $2.5 million per year. Securus calls this money a "commission," but the lawsuit refers to it as "kickbacks." Riverside County has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, saying families should have sued the phone companies, not the county, and that the FCC order makes the claims moot. Plaintiff attorneys say that, even if the FCC lowers rates and fees, the underlying problem will persist as long as phone companies keep paying counties for exclusive contracts, which they contend are illegal. "As long as these commissions exist, the rates will remain very high," said attorney Scott Rapkin. "Some of the fees have been cancelled, but the phone companies are going to come up with other fees that haven't been eliminated because they need to find a way to make the money to pay the counties. They are billion dollar companies for a reason -- they will find another way to make up the money." The Securus system works like this: A family member opens a Securus account, then deposits money. Funds are automatically withdrawn any time an inmate calls that account holder, and when the balance dwindles, another deposit is necessary. Local calls cost 14 cents per minute. Interstate calls are 20 cents per minute. International calls range from 25 cents to 54 cents per minute. The system is also littered with layers of other fees. The FCC order will change that, mostly. Call rates will stay the same, but most fees will be erased or capped. In addition to reducing the deposit fee from $7.95 to $3, the FCC order will make the following changes: A "state cost recovery fee" of up to 5 percent, applied to interstate calls, will disappear; A monthly "wireless administration fee" of $3.99, applied to any account that uses a cell phone, will no longer be used either; Finally, a 4 percent "location validation fee," which recovers the cost of tracking the location of anyone who receives a jail call, will no longer be charged. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department has said this fee as allowed in the Securus contract, but never actually activated. After the FCC order takes effect on June 20, activating the fee will no longer be an option. The FCC order, which was announced last October, is part of a longstanding effort to curb predatory call costs in both jails and prisons nationwide. In addition to erasing "burdensome" fees, the order capped call rates and discourages commission payments like those that Securus gives to Riverside County. Securus and another company, Global Tel Link, have challenged the FCC order in federal court. In March, a federal judge stayed the cap on call rates, but allowed the elimination of fees to continue, as they will in local jails. RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Oct. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing ---------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Arlene R. Lindsay entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit titled ROIE GAMIL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00981-ARL (E.D.N.Y.). The Court certified the case as a class action for settlement purposes and defined the Settlement Class as: "All consumers with addresses in the State of New York to whom Rubin & Rothman mailed an initial written communication, which failed to state that the consumer must dispute the debt in writing in order to obtain verification, during the period beginning February 25, 2014, and ending March 18, 2015." The Settlement Class members have until Aug. 29, 2016, to opt out of, or object to, the settlement. Objections to the settlement are due Aug. 29. A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement agreement and for final approval of the agreement is set for October 20, 2016. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ul2qhqVu SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Mojica" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff move for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel, in the class action lawsuit captioned SUSAN MOJICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant. Case No. 5:14-cv-05258-TLB (W.D. Ark.). Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an Order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): 1. Certifying this action to proceed as class action asserting a claim under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. on behalf of: All persons in the United States who, at any time within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Securus Technologies, Inc. (including its predecessors) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the facility1 a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Securus Technologies, Inc. in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; 2. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action on behalf of the following two subclasses asserting claims under the common law of unjust enrichment (the "UE Subclasses"): The Arkansas UE Subclass: all persons who, while a resident of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont or West Virginia, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Securus Technologies, Inc. (including its predecessors) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Securus Technologies, Inc. in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; The Tennessee UE Subclass: all persons who, while a resident of Alaska, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah or Washington, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Securus Technologies, Inc. (including its predecessors) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Securus Technologies, Inc. paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Securus Technologies, Inc. in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HB3KpZWI The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Amanda R. Trask, Esq. Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667 7706 Facsimile: (610) 667 7056 E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com atrask@ktmc.com mgalloway@ktmc.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Robert Braun, Esq. Emmy L. Levens, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com RBraun@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496 8282 Facsimile: (215) 496 0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Susan L. Burke, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE, PLLC 1611 Park Avenue Baltimore, MD 21217 Telephone: (410) 733 5444 Facsimile: (410) 733 5444 E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com - and - Amy C. Martin, Esq. EVERETT WALES & COMSTOCK 1944 East Joyce Boulevard P.O. Box 8370 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 443 0292 Facsimile: (479) 443-0564 E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com - and - Daniel Berger, Esq. Peter R. Kahana, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: danberger@bm.net pkahana@bm.net bpodell@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net SINGING RIVER: Court Stays Lowe's Claims vs KPMG ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned THOMAS JONES, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:14CV447-LG- RHW, Consolidated With No. 1:15CV1-LG-RHW., 1:15CV44-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. granted the motion to stay proceedings filed by the defendant KPMG, LLP. Two putative class action lawsuits -- by Thomas Jones and by Martha Ezell Lowe -- were filed against KPMG and others as a result of the alleged underfunding of the Singing River Health System Employees' Retirement Plan and Trust. KPMG filed Motions to Compel Arbitration in both of these lawsuits. On June 5, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits. The court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order compelling arbitration of the Jones plaintiffs' claims against KPMG on March 29, 2016. The Motion to Compel Arbitration of Lowe's claims against KPMG was denied. KPMG appealed the denial of its Motion concerning Lowe's claims. KPMG then sought a stay of Lowe's claims pending resolution of the Jones plaintiffs' claims. In the alternative, it sought a stay pending the conclusion of its appeal. Judge Guirola found that there is significant overlap among the claims asserted against KPMG in the Lowe and Jones lawsuits, because the same witnesses and evidence will likely be necessary to prove the claims asserted in Lowe and Jones. The judge also found that allowing Lowe to litigate her claims would pose a risk of inconsistent results and may undermine the arbitration of the Jones claims. A full-text copy of Judge Guirola's June 15, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/3gL7JS from Leagle.com. Thomas Jones, Joseph Charles Lohfink, Sue Beavers, Rodolfoa Rel, Hazel Reed Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr. -- dgw@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III -- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- pro hac vice, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com - - pro hac vice, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, Steven L. Nicholas -- sln@cunninghambounds.com -- pro hac vice, CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W. Busby, LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC. Martha Ezell Lowe, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Angelique M. Cooper, pro hac vice, A. COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, Richard P. Rouco, pro hac vice, QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP & Roger K. Doolittle, ROGER K. DOOLITTLE, ATTORNEY. Regina Cobb, Phyllis Denmark, Susan Creel, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas L. Tynes, Jr., TYNES LAW FIRM, PA, Dustin N. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC, J. Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- pro hac vice, BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC & Robert Keith Miller, MILLER & MILLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC. Singing River Health Services Foundation, Singing River Hospital System Foundation, Inc., Singing River Hospital System Employee Benefit Fund, Inc., Singing River Hospital System, Michael J. Heidelberg, Tommy Leonard, Morris G. Strickland, Ira Polk, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams -- bwilliams@dwwattorneys.com -- WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall -- carly.duvall@dentons.com -- pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III -- ksessoms@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Hanson D. Horn -- hhorn@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Singing River Health System Foundation, Singing River Health System, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Catherine C. Servati, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Dan W. Webb, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Jessie Wayne Doss, Webb, Sanders & Williams, PLLC & Roechelle R. Morgan, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC. Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marianne Hogan, pro hac vice, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, William J. Delany, pro hac vice, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP & Ashley Eley Cannady, BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP. KPMG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Amelia Toy Rudolph, pro hac vice, SOUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, Patricia Anne Gorham, pro hac vice, SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Taylor B. McNeel, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Gary C. Anderson, Defendant, represented by Roy D. Campbell, III, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP. Stephanie Barnes Taylor, Defendant, represented by Pieter Teeuwissen, PIETER TEEUWISSEN, PLLC. Michael Crews, Defendant, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Donald C. Dornan, Jr., DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Lauren R. Hillery, DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC. Allen Cronier, Defendant, represented by Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP & Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Marva Fairley-Tanner, Grayson Carter, Jr., Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP, Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP &Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Board of Trustees for the Singing River Health System, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC,Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS,Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP. Martin D. Bydalek, Consol Defendant, represented by Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. William C. Descher, Consol Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN. Kevin Holland, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R. Scheiderer, pro hac vice, DENTONS US, LLP. Stephen Nunenmacher, Joseph P. Vice, Eric D. Washington, Consol Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN. Hugo Quintana, Consol Defendant, represented by Mary Winter Van Slyke, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC & Stephen G. Peresich, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT. Mary Murphy, Interested Party, Pro Se. Jessie Carl Beasley, Sr., Interested Party, represented by John G. Corlew, CORLEW MUNFORD & SMITH, PLLC & Matthew G. Lyons, MATT G. LYONS, ATTORNEY. Cynthia N. Almond, Interested Party, represented by W. Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC & Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM, PLLC. Francisco C Aguilar, Kitty Patricia Aguilar, Tanya R Ardoin, Ray J. Barbour, Gail Bass, Marie Baylis, Robert G Baylis, Wilma C Beasley, Nancy L Beech, Sheila E Bishop, Mechelle Bivens, Howard Bosarge, Sandra J Bourgeois, Donna M Boutwell, Patti L. Boutwell, Withee A Brabston, Michael J Brewster, Ann Brumfield, Tammy L Buckley, Gary Burkett, Margaret A Butler, Douglas M. Butler, Ella Byrd, Angel Caillavet, Elizabeth G Carpenter, Harold A Carter, Carol A Carter, Anne B Chatman, Agnes Faye Cherry, Louverta O Cherry, Willie B Chestnut, Barbara B Chestnut, Johnnie M Clausell, Betty J Coles, Eloise Collins, Thomas A Crawford, Patricia A Crawford, Marinell Cumbest, Temesha Cunningham, Susan C Cutrer, Irma J Daniels-Doss, Nesta D Dees, Pamela Denson, Katherine A Douglas, Yulonda S Drake, Phillip W Drake, Ralph Drury, June Drury, Patricia A Dubois, Allen J Dubois, Billie M Dugger, Brenda Jean Eiland, Wanda J Ellisor, Judith C Ellzey, Ronald Ellzey, Walter D Forman, John Furr, Pablo Garcia, Mary J Garrett, Delores M Gowder, Dorothy J Gray, Stephanie A Green, Jo Ann Green, David N Gress, Annie Lushell Griffin, Rosie M Griffin, Alma Erlyne Griffin, Gloria E Hall, Mary E. Hall, Edward G. Hall, Susan Hamilton, Gary W Hamilton, Deloris M Harvey, Joseph Haydock, Alice Haydock, John W Hayes, Joe A. Herrington, David H Hill, Ethel Hill, Constance Hill, Jennie L Hoda, Rose Loquita Holliman, Keely J Horn, Beatrice I Housley, Michael Daniel Housley, Stephen Ray Howard, Deborah C Howard, John G Hyland, Jackie Ingram, Margie Jacobson, Karen R Jenkins, Evelyn Johnson, Ruby Lee Johnson, William C. Jones, Eula Jones, Dewey Kennedy, Jerald A Keyes, Peggy Kinard, Gloria Jo King, Patricia Louise Krebs, Joseph krystosek, Allen E Lane, Deloris A Larsen, Herman Lee, Leslie Alan Lety, Sandra Locke, Bobbie Jean Lowe, David Anthony Lowery, Evelin Rebecca Lyon, Leslie Lyons, Melva J Manning, Minnie Marshall, Debra A. Martin, Daisy McCann, Edna McDaniel, Laura McKenzie, Wayne McKenzie, Janice McMahan, Russell McMahan, Betty McMillian, Paulette McLemore, Virginia Lee McNease, Willie Frank Molden, Chantel Molden, Willie Ruth Molden, Stella Monroe, Dolly Ann Montgomery, Gaye Noel Moore, Homa Moradmand, Moses Monroe, Lillie M Mosley, Brunetta Murray, Trudy R Nelson, Patricia Nelson, Rodney Nichols, Kerry Sue Nichols, Elnora Oaddams, Mary M Odoms, James Oubre, Barbara Ann Parker, Clinton Parrett, Kimberly Lynn Patterson, Betty J Phelps, David Thomas Pinter, Don Pittman, Karen Poole, Maggie Jewel Rasco, Burton Redmond, Francis Carol Redmond, Karen Reeves, Michael Wayne Reeves, Melba Richardson, June M Ricks, Cynthia K Roberts, Ramona Roberts, Wreatha Robinson, Sharron Lynn Rouse, Joann Russell, Barbara W Sabino, Flora Sanders, Fredia Scott, James W. Scott, Joann Elizabeth Shorkley, Brenda Darnetta Shutz, Barbara J sistrunk, Joyce Mae Skelton, Warren T Skelton, Berthena Smith, Windy M Smith-Taylor, Rosemary Sontoyo, Barbara Stacy, Debra A Stebye, Wanda Street, Donna L Stringer, Sherry Teer, Marvin Teer, Marjorie P Thara, Delia F. Thomas, Victoria Thomas- Poole, Maury Glenn Thompson, Lillian R Thompson, Irby A Tillman, Dorothy L Tillman, Jennifer Toney, Parma Ann Trusler, Iva Nell Vaughan, Vergil Lewis Vaughan, Linda Carolyn Verbeck, Pamela Vice, Gerald Vice, Marian L Waldrop, Mary A Waltman, Beverly Watson, John Watson, Shirley M. Wells, Rickey E White, Bonnie E Wien, Steven G Wien, Kathy Wiggins, Sylvia A Williams, Terry P Wise, Beverly Wise, Darlene Wixon, Rita Womble, Interested Parties, represented by Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM, PLLC & W. Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC. Barry Cumbest, Melton Harris, Jr., Joshua Eldridge, John McKay, Interested Parties, represented by William Lee Guice, III, RUSHING & GUICE, PLLC. Cobb Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Dustin N. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC & Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC. STATE FARM: Summary Judgment in Freedom Medical Case Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 14-1628 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (collectively "State Farm"). In 2012, the appellant, Freedom Medical Supply, Inc., commenced a class action against State Farm, alleging that State Farm violated the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) in determining the "usual and customary charge" for an electrical muscle stimulator and a portable whirlpool. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, finding that State Farm was not required to accept the amount charged by Freedom for these devices as the "usual and customary charge." On appeal, Freedom reiterated its argument that Pennsylvania law constrained State Farm to accept Freedom's charges as the "usual and customary charge." The Third Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's order, finding that State Farm complied with the MVFRL and its corresponding regulations. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's June 8, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/nj8cJn from Leagle.com. SYNGENTA: February Trial Set in Midwest Corn Farmers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Wendt, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that the Midwest Corn Lawsuit is aiming for February to further their fight for farmers who grew corn under Syngenta. The group is encouraging Iowa farmers to come to meetings and join the lawsuit. The approximately 10 trials that attorney at law Rob Tully and other lawyers representing the lawsuit will begin in February. Mr. Tully said the case has had some great progress. "A great move that the judge suggested was they move the cases out into the counties so there can be more farmers at these cases," Mr. Tully said. "Another major move was the court has appointed a settlement master that is assigned by the court to see if the plaintiff has merit." According to the Midwest Corn Lawsuit flier, there are lawsuits pending against Syngenta In 22 states and more than 50,000 farmers across the U.S. have filed suit. The case will be a mass tort rather than a class action lawsuit. Mr. Tully said this was to give more compensation to the farmers. "This is not that way (a class action lawsuit)," Mr. Tully said. "We represent each farmer individually. The lawyers are paying for expenses out of their fees because we are under Texas law." Mr. Tully explained that under Texas law, the lawyers are able to take the expenses out of their fees. Under Iowa law, they would not be allowed to do so. Mr. Tully wants to remind farmers to join the lawsuit if they were affected by Syngenta's corn. "This is absolutely risk free," Mr. Tully said. "If farmers don't join now, they (Syngenta) might settle and the farmers will lose out." This case is happening because Syngenta introduced a genetically engineered corn trait into the U.S. market. The corn was known as Agrisure Viptera. The trait was put into the corn to protect it from insect damage such as the corn borer and corn rootworm. China didn't approve of the corn when Syngenta marketed the product to farmers, yet Syngenta maintained China's approval was imminent. When the corn was shipped, China still hadn't approved and when they received the shipments adding up to 545,000 tons of corn, they rejected and destroyed shipments of the corn. Other countries followed suit and there was a loss of 3.3 million metric tons of corn and a loss of $2.9 billion dollars. Mr. Tully said this court case is to defend farmers and to help them earn back their losses. "I believe in this case," Mr. Tully said. "I believe farmers deserve compensation for something they had no control of." TARGA RESOURCES: TRC-TRP Merger Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has dismissed litigation related to TRC/TRP Merger. On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of the general partner (the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub (collectively, the "State Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015- 75481, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 234th Judicial District (the "State Court Lawsuit"). The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP partnership agreement and (ii) TRC, TRP's general partner, and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of TRP's general partner. Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded and seek attorneys' fees. On February 26 and 29, 2016, the State Court Defendants filed general denials and asserted affirmative defenses. The State Court Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report, nor can the State Court Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation. The State Court Defendants believe the State Court Lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against this lawsuit and any other actions challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. On January 6 and 19, 2016, two additional purported unitholders of TRP (the "Federal Court Plaintiffs") filed two putative class action lawsuits challenging the disclosures made in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger against TRP and the members of the TRP GP Board (the "Federal Court Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Targa Resources Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-00041, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal Court Lawsuits"). The Federal Court Plaintiffs alleged that (i) the Federal Court Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the TRP GP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Court Plaintiffs alleged, in general, that the preliminary and definitive joint proxy statements/prospectuses filed in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material information concerning (i) the TRP GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor's and TRC's financial advisor's analyses in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger, (ii) certain TRC and TRP projections, and (iii) the events leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger. The Federal Court Plaintiffs further alleged, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of the general partner. Based on these allegations, the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the Federal Court Defendants disclosed the allegedly omitted information summarized above. The Federal Court Plaintiffs also sought damages, attorneys' fees, and to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded. One of the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to prevent the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with the TRC/TRP vote and/or merger. On January 29, 2016, this Plaintiff was denied his request for a TRO. On April 20, 2016, the court dismissed the Federal Court Lawsuits without prejudice. TEXAS: Green Seeks Class Certification of Suit v. Justice Dept -------------------------------------------------------------- An inmate moves for class certification in the lawsuit styled STEVEN KEITH GREEN; et alius, the Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS BOARD AND PAROLE; TEXAS CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES; and BRAD LIVINGSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, the Respondents, Case No. 6:16-cv00503-MHS-KNM (E.D Tex.). The lawsuit says "there is currently over 400 persons joined as Plaintiffs in this action," and that the "parties opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pmlHiWHa TOTAL CARD: Bid to Dismiss "Genova" Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------ Judge William H. Walls granted the defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned ROCCO GENOVA, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL CARD, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-cv-1260 (WHW)(CLW) (D.N.J.). In the putative class action, Rocco Genova, Jr. alleged that the defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending him a debt collection notice containing false, deceptive, or misleading statements about the legal status of his debt. Judge Walls, however, found that Genova's complaint fails to adequately allege either (a) that the defendant, Total Card, Inc. (TCI), misrepresented the amount, character, or legal status of Genova's debt to Merrick Bank Corporation (MBC) at the time TCI sent the collection letter or (b) that TCI misrepresented or failed to inform Genova of the effect that his partial settlement payments would have on the legal status of his debt with MBC. A full-text copy of Judge Walls' June 8, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/HFAiO7 from Leagle.com. ROCCO GENOVA, JR., Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS -- ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN -- yzelman@marcuszelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC. TOTAL CARD, INC., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A. MONTOYA -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fox News Join Drive to Obtain Deposition Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico.com, reports that Fox News is joining a media coalition seeking to obtain full access to depositions presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave in a class-action lawsuit over his Trump University real estate seminar program. When an array of news organizations moved to loosen restrictions on the deposition transcripts and videos, all the major news networks were part of the effort, except for Fox. Also on board were the New York Times, the Washington Post and Tribune Co., publisher of the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. In a filing on June 15 with U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego, lawyers for the media coalition said Fox was joining the consortium supporting the drive to remove confidential designations on parts of Trump's testimony. If those restrictions are lifted, either side in the case would be free to release the transcripts in their entirety and likely the videos of the depositions as well. A Fox spokesperson said on June 15 the network was not aware of the other news outlets' plans to intervene in the case and expressed an interest in joining as soon as it learned of the move. The apparent lack of an invitation to Fox was first reported on June 14 by Lawnewz.com The prominent Southern California media lawyer leading the press effort, Kelli Sager -- kellisager@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine, did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the situation. The firm, but not Ms. Sager, represented the Washington Post in an earlier attempt to unseal filings in one of the two federal class-action lawsuits Trump faces over Trump University. Judge Curiel has set a June 30 hearing on the media motion. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Scroggins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01419-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 9, 2016), arises from Uber's misclassification of Uber Drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, which resulted in their inability to earn minimum wage. The Defendants own and operate the Uber transportation service company headquartered at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and - Paul B. Maslo, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: PMaslo@NapoliLaw.com - and - Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-0007 E-mail: Brittany@lawicm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Johnston, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 03134-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide employees with 60 days' notice of termination. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based car service promoting itself as a transportation networking company ("TNC"). The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK & DAVIS, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 Facsimile: (512) 795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com - and - Thomas J. Brandi, Esq. Brian J. Malloy, Esq. THE BRANDI LAW FIRM 354 Pine Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 989-1800 E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com bjm@brandilaw.com UNITED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ James A. Shabazz v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. CV- 16-864505 (Ohio. Comm. Pl., June 9, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing automated calls to the Plaintiff and the class members' cellular telephones using its predictive dialer and prerecorded or artificial voice without the consent of the called party. United Collection Bureau, Inc. is primarily engaged in the business of debt collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryl E. Pittman, Esq. DARRYL E PITTMAN ATTORNEYS 2490 Lee Blvd., Suite 115 Cleveland, OH 44118 Telephone: (216) 291-1005 Facsimile: (216) 382-8512 E-mail: dlawgood450@sbcglobal.net UNITED ONLINE: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 14 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on June 10, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of United Online, Inc. ("United Online") (NASDAQGS: UNTD) against its Board of Directors, B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley"), and Unify Merger Sub, Inc. for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. United Online Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy Statement The action arises out of a May 4, 2016 press release announcing that United Online had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which B. Riley will acquire all of United Online's common stock for $11 per share in cash, in a transaction valued at approximately $170 million (the "Proposed Acquisition"). The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated United Online shareholders (the "Class"). The named plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP. The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to United Online shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Acquisition. If you purchased or otherwise acquired United Online stock on, or prior to, the May 4, 2016 announcement of the Proposed Acquisition, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from June 14, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at info@robbinsarroyo.com Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- claims to be a nationally recognized leader in the area of shareholder rights litigation. It represents individual and institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions. UNITED STATES STEEL: Sued Over Benzene Products Exposure -------------------------------------------------------- James D. Aiello Sr. and Sharon Aiello v. United States Steel Corporation, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) f/k/a Sun Company, Inc. and f/k/a/ Sun Oil Company, Inc., Radiator Specialty Company, The PEP Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack, and CRC Industries, Inc., Case No. 60600761 (Phil. Comm. Pl., June 9, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Plaintiffs exposure to the Defendants' benzene- containing products through inhalation, ingestion and dermal absorption. United States Steel Corporation operates a steel company located at 600 Grant Street, Room 1500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800. Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. Radiator Specialty Company operates an automotive products company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. The PEP Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack operates a full-service and tire automotive aftermarket chain. CRC Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial chemicals for maintenance and repair of marine, electrical, industrial, automotive and aviation equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Dupont, Esq. Mark S. Weinstein, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM The Curtis Center, Suite 720E 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 893-0100 E-mail: adupont@lockslaw.com mweinstein@locksIaw.com UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Smith" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled David L. Smith, the Plaintiff, v. United States of America et al., the Defendants, case No. 1:15-2123-UNA (D.D.C.), the Court denied Plaintiff's application for Class Action Certification and Request for Leave to File Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court noted that Plaintiff's appeal of the January 8, 2016 dismissal order remains pending in the Court of Appeals. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2xAbqYvp UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Fisher" Suit Over PACER Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned BRYNDON FISHER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES C. DUFF, et al., Defendants, Case No. C15-5944 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, James Duff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States. On December 28, 2015, the plaintiff, Bryndon Fisher, filed a class action complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The next day, Fisher filed a class action complaint against the defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In both suits, Fisher alleged that the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system systematically overcharges users for accessing docket reports. Fisher claimed that over the last two years he accessed 184 docket reports on PACER and was overcharged $37. Based on the alleged overcharges, Fisher asserted claims for breach of contract and illegal exaction. Fisher claimed the district court has jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, which provides that district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Federal Claims over claims seeking $10,000 or less against the United States. On March 7, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit before the district court. On March 28, 2016, Fisher filed an amended complaint, which added a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 6, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss Fisher's amended complaint. The defendants contended the suit should be dismissed under the "first-to-file" rule because Fisher has already filed a substantially similar suit in the Court of Federal Claims. Fisher opposed the motion, arguing the rule does not apply. Alternatively, Fisher argued the suit should be stayed rather than dismissed. Judge Settle concluded that the first-to-file rule applies. Although Fisher argued the suit should be stayed rather than dismissed, Judge Settle found that dismissal is more appropriate because the putative class members in the suit can obtain relief in the Court of Federal Claims suit. A full-text copy of Judge Settle's June 15, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/vsTpN5 from Leagle.com. Bryndon Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Miranda P Kolbe -- mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP, Noah M Schubert, pro hac vice, SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP & Robert C Schubert -- rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP. James C Duff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, The United States of America, Defendant, represented by Sarah K Morehead, US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Uses Background Report, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus X. Miramontes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, BC 623326 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide disclosure of intent and authorization to use a background report for employment purpose. U.S. Healthworks, Inc. is a health care provider network headquartered in Valencia, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF LAW, P.C. 234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (310) 430-9933 Facsimile: (818)484-2023 E-mail: devin@devmfoklaw.com - and - Joshua E. Kim, Esq. A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT 9512 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles CA 90002 Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Ext. 34 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org VOLKSWAGEN AG: Former CEO Faces Probe Over Emissions Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------ David McHugh and David Rising, writing for The Associated Press, report that German prosecutors are investigating former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn and another unnamed executive over allegations they didn't inform investors soon enough about the company's scandal over cars rigged to cheat on U.S. diesel emissions tests. The Braunschweig prosecutor's spokesman, Matthias Diekman, said in a statement on June 20 that the probe was opened at the behest of Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, the country's financial watchdog. German stock market law requires publicly traded companies to alert investors as soon as they have unforeseen developments that could affect a decision to buy or sell the stock. Prosecutors said that Volkswagen only made that notification on Sept. 22, and that there was evidence that the disclosure obligation should have been fulfilled earlier. Volkswagen said it had the issue reviewed by outside lawyers who found "no clear or serious violations of duty" and that the prosecutor's statement contained "no new facts or findings over possible violations" by the two executives. The company had already said in response to an investor lawsuit that it met its disclosure obligation. The company said the review showed no reason not to recommend that shareholders vote to approve management's work for 2015 at the annual meeting on June 15. Volkswagen has said Mr. Winterkorn was sent a memo on May 23, 2014, about emissions irregularities uncovered by an environmental group, but the company was not sure he saw it, and said that top officials discussed the matter on July 27, 2015. The company said earlier that the issue was believed to be something that could be resolved through a settlement that would not impose heavy costs, and it still believed that to be the case in early September 2015. On September 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a violation notice, leading Volkswagen to assess the risks as more serious and issue its investor advisory four days later. The prosecutors' news release said that the second employee is not the current board of directors' chairman, Hans Dieter Poetsch. Mr. Poetsch was chief financial officer under Mr. Winterkorn but has since left that post. Mr. Winterkorn stepped down as the scandal came to light, saying he was doing so "in the interests of the company even though I am not aware of any wrongdoing on my part." Volkswagen has admitted equipping cars with software that sensed when the car was on a test stand and turned off emission controls during everyday driving. The company has apologized and commissioned a law firm to investigate. It is negotiating a settlement with U.S. authorities in federal court in San Francisco on how it would fix or buy back some 500,000 diesels sold in the United States. Some 11 million such cars were sold worldwide. Volkswagen has set aside 16.2 billion euros ($18.3 billion) from last year's earnings to deal with the costs of recalls and fixes. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: To Deliver Electric Cars Amid Emissions Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Bomey, writing for USA TODAY, reports that German automaker Volkswagen Group plans to deliver 30 electric plug-in models by 2025 as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul its global strategy, The new plan comes in the wake of a devastating emissions scandal that cast doubt on the future of its once-beloved diesel cars. It also exposes the immense challenges that the company will face internally. Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller on June 16 articulated a new vision for the automaker through 2025, describing electric cars, ride-hailing services and cost-cutting as critical to the company's future. Mr. Mueller suggested that Volkswagen Group, whose brands include Audi and Porsche, will "significantly" reduce the number of models it makes and will slash almost $9 billion in spending annually to bolster the bottom line. The product overhaul and pledge to embrace thriftiness come as Volkswagen is already facing a bill of more than $18 billion to cover the costs of its emissions scandal. The company rigged some 11 million diesel cars worldwide with software to cheat emissions standards. The admission triggered a litany of government investigations, a U.S. sales slump, a management shakeup and a lot of soul searching at the world's second-largest automaker. On June 16, a federal judge gave Volkswagen an additional week to file details of its settlement with U.S. and California regulators and class-action lawsuit plaintiffs, a case that will involve compensation and fixes for vehicle owners. Mr. Mueller, who has repeatedly apologized for the scandal, acknowledged on June 16 in a press conference that the episode exposed "major weaknesses" and a measure of "complacency" that requires a "revolutionary transition." The bet on fully electric vehicles will be paired with an investment in battery technology, though Mr. Mueller provided few details of what that would entail. Among the electric vehicles already in the works are the Porsche Mission E sports car, billed as a Tesla fighter, and the Audi e-tron quattro luxury electric crossover concept. The strategy overhaul met a skeptical audience in Jack Nerad, executive market analyst at Kelley Blue Book, who questioned whether Volkswagen can achieve swift cultural changes and dramatic product transformation while cutting costs. What's more, serious questions about the mass-market viability of electric vehicles remain. "Certainly electric vehicles are coming," Mr. Nerad said. But "there's no general consumer groundswell for electric vehicles." Volkswagen may also find itself with split loyalties between its diesel cars, a favorite of European car buyers and some American consumers, and the need to develop electric vehicles. "Diesel is so deeply entrenched in Europe," he said. "That's the home field for Volkswagen. It's hard to imagine they would step away from that." Speaking at a press conference in Germany that was live-streamed online and translated into English, Mr. Mueller said Volkswagen's turnaround would hinge on plans to: -- Launch a new "mobility services" division based in Berlin, giving it "sufficient distance" from the automaker's Wolfsburg, Germany, headquarters. The division will manage Volkswagen's recent $300 million investment in ride-hailing app Gett. -- Increase Volkswagen Group's operating profit margin from about 6% before one-time items in 2015 to between 7% and 8% by 2025, fueled by a reduction in R&D and capital expenditures as a percentage of revenue. -- Expand the automaker's self-driving car capabilities. Volkswagen will hire 1,000 "software specialists" to bolster its capabilities in autonomous vehicles, Mr. Mueller said. "We believe in the future of this technology, its rapid spread and its revolutionary potential," Mr. Mueller said. -- Turn Volkswagen's components division into "a separate company." The unit currently employs about 67,000 workers at 26 locations worldwide. WEATHERBY INC: $500,000 Class Action Settlement in "Fiant" Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Stephen W. Fiant, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEATHERBY, INC., the Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-02991-BRO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell: -- grants Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and -- grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards. The Settlement Class is defined as "all of Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees from April 22, 2011 through the date of Preliminary Approval, or February 3, 2016. The agreement also defines the "FLSA Overtime Subclass" as all hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant throughout the United States at any time from April 22, 2012 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order [February 3, 2016] who opt in and who, during that period, received quarterly sales bonuses and earned overtime wages during the corresponding periods during which these quarterly sales bonuses were earned, but were not included in the regular rate of pay for weekly overtime purposes." Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant agrees to pay the sum of the Individual Settlement Payments, the Class Representative Enhancement Award, the Class Counsel Award and Costs, the PAGA Allocation to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the Settlement Administration Costs, up to the Maximum Settlement Fund of $500,000. Individual Settlement Payments will be allocated as follows: one-third as wages, one-third as interest, and one-third as penalties. The Court grants Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $140,000 as well as costs in the amount of $3,842.28, and grants Plaintiff an incentive award in the amount of $10,000. The Court further grants claim administrator expenses in the amount of $8,500 to CPT. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UCz3wnqo WISH-I-AH SKILLED: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Licon" Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KATHY LICON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WISH-I-AH SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE LLC, Defendant and Appellant, No. F070304 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims against it. The plaintiff, Kathy Licon, filed an action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging causes of action for wage and hour violations against her employer, Wish-I-Ah Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, adding Denise as a named plaintiff and adding causes of action alleged by her as a private attorney general, seeking penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of herself and other employees of Wish-I-Ah. Wish-I-Ah responded with a petition to compel arbitration of the disputes. It presented evidence that the plaintiffs had signed various documents agreeing to be bound by Wish-I-Ah's arbitration program or acknowledging receipt of the booklet that described it and contained its provisions. The plaintiffs opposed the petition, asserting none of the documents presented by Wish-I-Ah constituted an agreement to arbitrate their employment disputes; alternatively, if such an agreement existed, the provisions of the arbitration program were unconscionable and should not be enforced, and the arbitration agreement excluded or did not apply to the class claims or the private attorney general claims. The trial court denied the petition, finding the arbitration agreement expressly excluded class and collective actions. Further, the agreement submitted by Wish-I-Ah was unconscionable, and the unconscionable provisions should not be severed. Wish-I- Ah appealed from the denial of its petition to compel arbitration. On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the arbitration agreement excluded class and collective actions from its scope, so the plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate the class claims or the private attorney general claims included in their first amended complaint. A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 15, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/srJNnb from Leagle.com. Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, John B. Golper -- jgolper@brgslaw.com -- and Jeffrey P. Fuchsman -- jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Sutton Hague Law Corporation, S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Joseph V. Macias -- joseph@suttonhague.com -- and Wesley Carlson -- wesley@suttonhague.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. YALCIN INC: "Yanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Yanez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Yalcin, Inc. d/b/a Springfield Marble & Granite ("SMG") and Bilgehan Yalcin, Case No. 1:16-cv-00645-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a concrete construction company with its principal office located in Alexandria, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com YM KNIT: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Yanira Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YM Knit, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC623259 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, YM Knit, Inc. is in the knitting goods and supplies industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 ZAFGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bessler" Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, AVIAD BESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZAFGEN, INC. and THOMAS E. HUGHES, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-13618-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV held a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on June 20 and thereafter took the matter under advisement. Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv- 13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the request. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this action and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any. Zafgen, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly improving the health and well-being of patients affected by obesity and complex metabolic disorders. Aviad Bessler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situtated, is represented by: Jeffrey C Block, Esq. Block & Leviton LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 1303 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com - and - Joel Anderson Fleming, Esq. Block & Leviton LLP Suite 400, 155 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 388-0622 E-mail: joel@blockesq.com Plaintiff Theodore J. Daly is represented by: Eugene R. Richard, Esq. Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz, LLP One Boston Place, Suite 3620 Boston, MA 02108 Tel: (617) 720-7870 Fax: (617) 720-7877 E-mail: generichard@wrhmlaw.com Plaintiff Terry Brennan is represented by: Gonen Haklay, Esq. Rosen Law Firm 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 600-2817 E-mail: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com - and - Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 600-2817 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com Intervenor Plaintiff Oakland County Employees' Retirement System is represented by: Ian N. McCallister, Esq. Kreindler & Kreindler LLP 855 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 933-5920 E-mail: imccallister@kreindler.com Defendants are represented by: Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq. Adam Slutsky, Esq. Kate E. MacLeman, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Tel: 617.570.1000 Fax: 617.523.1231 E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com aslutsky@goodwinprocter.com kmacleman@goodwinprocter.com * Chicago Business Leaders Balk at Burke's New Arbitration Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that companies that use "forced arbitration clauses" to resolve disputes with employees and consumers would be prohibited from doing business with the city of Chicago under an ordinance advanced June 15 over fierce opposition from the business community. Ald. Edward Burke (14th) pushed the ban he championed through the City Council Finance Committee he chairs, but he agreed to hold the ordinance in committee after Mayor Rahm Emanuel raised "serious concerns" about the impact on city operations and spending. It happened one day before the business community is poised to take yet another financial hit: an ordinance requiring Chicago employers large and small to provide their employees with at least five paid sick days a year. Business leaders have likened it to death by a thousand cuts. They argue that it's not any one government mandate that's so damaging, but the cumulative effect. "In the past 14 months, they've passed a higher minimum wage, the largest property tax increase in Chicago history -- paid disproportionately by the business community -- and a plastic bag ban, to say nothing of a recent Cook County sales tax and hotel tax increase and all of the uncertainty in Springfield," said Mike Reever, vice president of government relations at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. "These policies do have a cumulative impact. . . . You're layering one policy on top of another and all of those costs are being paid for by the employer community," he said. "Once again, it's putting Chicago on an island. That's a competitive disadvantage for employers." Tanya Triche, vice president and general counsel of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said the business community has endured two years of piling on that also includes a ton of regulations and taxes on tobacco products, as well as Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to raise the smoking age to 21. "It's really been relentless. We have had a difficult time trying to react and prepare for the financial impact of all of these regulations. More property taxes are coming down the pike. This is less about whether people deserve paid sick leave and more about how much more existing businesses can take," Ms. Triche said. Ald. Proco Joe Moreno (1st), chief sponsor of the sick leave ordinance, said the version expected to be approved on June 16 by the City Council's Committee on Workforce Development is "good for business." "We want healthy workers . . . . It's good for the folks who don't have to decide whether to take a day off to take a sick day," he said. "I don't want to go to a deli with my kids and worry that the guy in back is sick while making our sandwiches . . . . [If so,] they should put up a sign: 'Buyer beware. The food you have about to eat may have been made by somebody who has the flu because we don't give our employees sick days.'" Mr. Burke's arbitration ordinance would prohibit city contractors and their affiliates from using "pre-dispute arbitration agreements" to resolve disputes with employees or consumers as well as disagreements stemming from civil rights complaints. Critics contend that "forced arbitration" denies consumers and employees their constitutional right to have complaints heard by an impartial judge and jury. They complain about the "secrecy" and "unfairness" of arbitration, where the deck is often stacked against consumers by arbitrators with a pro-business bias because they want to stay busy. Proponents further claim that arbitration requirements prevent consumers from "banding together" in a class-action lawsuit. Business groups counter that they use arbitration because it's "faster and cheaper than going to court." They further argue that the court system is "overwhelmed with class-action cases," saying class-action wage and hour cases are the "largest single" category of cases filed in U.S. courts. "The number of cases will only continue to increase due to the focus on wage and hour issues such as overtime and minimum wage. Companies need a better way than a court battle to resolve these issues," David Ritter, co-chairman of the Employment Law Forum for the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, told aldermen. "Arbitration does not permit companies to shield or run away from violations. It is just a more efficient manner to resolve disputes for all parties." Mr. Ritter argued that Burke's ordinance would "harm our already fragile economic climate by adding another unnecessary regulatory burden on business" while doing "very little" to protect consumers and employees. "Who really wins with this proposed ordinance are the trial attorneys who receive significant legal fees from class actions, while the plaintiffs get very little in terms of relief," Ritter said. Mr. Burke's clout-heavy law firm has helped presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump shave $11.7 million off the property tax bill for his riverfront hotel and condominium tower over seven years. The arbitration ordinance helps him look like he's standing up for the little guy. On June, Mr. Burke called class-action lawsuits "an important check" on business and "the only realistic way that an individual with limited resources can fight a wealthy corporation." "They can deter future corporate misconduct because even small payouts multiplied across an entire class, can amount to a very large amount," Mr. Burke said. The Finance Committee chairman then quoted what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a 2011 dissent: "The realistic alternative to a class-action is not seventeen million individual suits, but zero individual suits as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30," Burke said. * Successful Securities Class Action Law Firms Picked Right Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the plaintiffs' firms that are the most successful in securities class actions have one thing in common: they pick the right cases up- front. Spending extra effort on the front end to evaluate cases before accepting the responsibility of serving as class counsel is critically important, Darren Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- a founding partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, told Bloomberg BNA. A successful civil action requires not only establishing defendants' misconduct, but providing a sensible path to recovery for clients, Mr. Robbins said. "We are acutely sensitive to this reality and utilize teams of investigators, former prosecutors and forensic accountants to delve into, assess and formulate potential claims." The strategy has paid off for the firm. Robbins Geller was the top in 2015 in representing clients in securities class actions, recovering more than $1.5 billion in approved settlements, according to a report by Institutional Shareholder Services Securities Class Action Services LLC. Darren Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- a partner at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP--another firm that made ISS's top 10--said it's a matter of having quality lawyers that can evaluate and investigate claims early to find out as much as possible so that the firm knows what it is getting into. Until a lawsuit clears the motion-to-dismiss stage, plaintiffs can't get discovery and are investigating potential corporate fraud based primarily on what's publicly available, he said. Settlement Amounts Up Federal securities class actions can be extremely lucrative for plaintiffs' attorneys, who generally are paid from the money they recover for clients. According to a Cornerstone Research report, 80 securities class action settlements were approved in 2015, the highest number since 2010 (61 CARE, 3/30/16). The report also found that total settlement dollars rose to more than $3 billion last year--a 184 percent increase from 2014's historic low, and an increase compared to the annual average of $2.8 billion over the last five years. Meanwhile, the number of cases continues to climb. Last year, securities class lawsuits hit a seven-year high with 234 complaints filed, the highest number since the financial crisis, a National Economic Research Associates Inc. report found (17 CARE, 1/27/16). In 2015, four plaintiffs' firms obtained over $500 million in settlements for their clients in cases in which they served as lead or co-lead counsel, according to the ISS report, which ranked the top firms in terms of settlement amounts. After Robbins Geller, the other top firms were Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, and Miller Law Firm. Kessler Topaz was seventh. While finding the right case is paramount, plaintiffs' attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that that can take a significant toll on the firm's resources. Michael Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- a partner at Labaton Sucharow LLP, said his firm spends an enormous amount of time performing due diligence on claims before recommending them to clients. "This can require a substantial outlay of resources, including retaining industry experts and analyzing enormous amounts of data," he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. Labaton Sucharow was eighth on ISS's list. Other Qualities In addition to picking the right claims, a successful firm is defined by integrity, character and hard work, Mr. Robbins said. "You can't have a successful plaintiffs' firm if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is," he said. "You have to go all in, not test the waters." At the same time, securities fraud is constantly evolving. Stocker stressed that to stay successful, firms have to educate themselves on new trends in the markets, whether it's cybersecurity or high- frequency trading. "This makes the practice very different from something like contract law, where fact patterns and legal authority are relatively static," he said. Firms also must adapt to the increasing globalization of securities litigation. There are securities cases being litigated all over the world as investors' portfolios become more global, said Mr. Check, whose practice includes working with many types of institutional investors in corporate fraud cases. The firms that have been really successful are the ones that understand how to diversify their practice to best serve their clients' needs, he said. Moreover, firms must show they understand the business and market environment as well as the law, Stocker said. He noted that the firms that really distinguish themselves in a competitive environment are the ones that are prepared to advocate for investor interests outside of the courtroom -- especially in the media. Roadblocks It is no easy ride for plaintiffs' attorneys, who face a myriad of challenges, not least of which is competition from other plaintiffs' firms. They said they also have to fight the influence of lobbyists and business groups on Capitol Hill, and cope with the high vacancy of district court judges, which leads to delays in case resolution. Moreover, defendant corporations frequently are well-funded and represented by the nation's top law firms. Mr. Stocker said Labaton Sucharow's attorneys work hard to "even the playing field" when they litigate against big defense firms. "Defendants are often their own best industry experts--they already understand the business they are in," Mr. Stocker said. "When we litigate a case in a sector unfamiliar to us, we work with top industry experts to make sure we are at no disadvantage. This can be critical to your case when dealing with fraud claims relating to the pharmaceutical sector or asset-backed securities, as we often do." Meanwhile, some firms measure success in ways other than winning a high-dollar settlement in a large securities case. Mr. Stocker said his firm pursues smaller actions that it thinks can expand the law to better protect investors. Mr. Robbins similarly said success isn't always measured in terms of dollars and cents. He said his firm over the years has dedicated time, energy, and the full range of its resources for many pro bono and charitable actions that aren't related to securities fraud. "We work hard to be good citizens who give back to the communities we live and work in," he said. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *