/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160801.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 152 Headlines 1ST AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Falsely Guarantees Job, Suit Alleges AKAL SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying OT to Air Security Officer ALAVI FOUNDATION: 2nd Cir. Reverses Ruling in Terrorism Suit ALL ABOUT LUV-N-CARE: "Moody" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ALL IN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit over "All Natural" Label ALLERGAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Asacol Antitrust Suit ALLIED INSURANCE: "Laningham" Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Use AMERICAN FAMILY: "Riggins" Suit Transferred from W.D. Mo to Utah ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Doesn't Cover Name-Brand Medication, Suit Says ARCHER DANIELS: Class Suit Filed Over Horse Poisoning AURELIO RODRIGUEZ: Sued by Ex-Housekeeper Over Unpaid Overtime AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. BEEFALO BOB'S: "Parks" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Court Narrows Claims in "Tapia-Matos" Suit CANADIAN PACIFIC: Says No Timetable Governing Lac-Megantic Suit CANADIAN PACIFIC: Class Action and Mass Action Pending Texas CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Bee" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary Okay CARELINK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Downie" Suit Says CAREY WATERMARK: To Defend Against Multiple Wage & Hour Actions CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits CERES INC: "Roberts" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal CERES INC: 3 Class Suits Filed Over Land O'Lakes Merger Deal CHC GROUP: 2 N.Y. Securities Class Action Consolidated CHECKR INC: Faces "Scott" Suit in E.D. Penn. CHICAGO: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over Streaming Services Tax CIOX HEALTH: Faces "Finfrock" Suit in S.D.N.Y. CITIBANK NA: Nichols Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. CLEAN HARBORS: "Gibson" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. CRESUD SOCIEDAD: "Tomka" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act CSX CORP: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 2016 CYTRX CORPORATION: Class-Action Settlement Completed DEL TACO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held July 26 DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Wage and Hour Action DEL TACO: Defending Suit by California Hourly Employees DELTA AIR: Bag Fee Suit in Georgia Wins Class Certification DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Revives Portion of Subprime Securities Suit DIRECTV: Illegaly Debited Customer's Bank Account, Suit Says DOLPHIN TOWING: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA DOORDASH INC: "Bassknight" Class Suit Dismissed EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Sued in Md. Over False False Statements ENDO HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Mahoney" Suit EVERBANK FIN'L: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Vathana" Suit FABI INC: "Garcia" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ill. Wage Law FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Dismissal of OPERS Suit Reversed FEDEX CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 2017 in MDL FEDEX CORP: Arkansas and Florida Cases Settled FEDEX CORP: Approval of Calif. Case Settlement under Appeal FEDEX CORP: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Oregon Case FEDEX CORP: Contractor-Model Cases Pending FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Fixing Propane Exchange Tanks Price FIRST AMERICAN: Carrera Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid GODADDY.COM: "Dickson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Diamond Suit Over Real Property Assessment HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Stonecrossing Suit Over Property Assessment HOMELAND SECURITY: Judge Certifies Age Discrimination Class HOMEWOOD SUITES: Patrons Sue Over E. coli in Hotel Pool INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Action INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 77 Product Liability Lawsuits INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Wash. Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Reached Confidential Settlement in "Zarick" IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Wan" Sues Over Share Price Drop JVS RESTAURANTS: "Valasquez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages K&Y PEACE: "Mendez" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay K12 INC: "Tarapara" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act KAKECH LLC: Faces "Cook" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA KRISPY KREME: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Case LANCASTER, PA: Refugee Children Denied Educational Opportunities LAUREN A. ADESSA: Faces "Giammona" Suit in D.N.J. LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. Cal. LIFE TIME: "Roth" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval MARICOPA, AZ: Phoenix Judge Trimmed Sheriff Arpaio's Authority MARICOPA, AZ: Defying Court Orders Not "Criminal," Arpaio Argues MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Settlement Deal in "Knuckles" Has Final Okay MARY KAY: D.N.J. Ruling in "Collins" Class Suit under Appeal MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA MCDONALD CORP: Not Liable for Wage Theft Claims, Judge Says MCDONALD'S CORP: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ochoa" Class Suit MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Vacated Certification of Settlement Class MDL 2002: Summary Judgment BidS Pending in Egg Antitrust Suit MDL 2562: Nadola Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement MDL 2562: Sweeney Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement MDL 2562: Sibley Appeals Order Approving $32MM Settlement MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Proposed Range Merger MERCHANT ENTERPRISES: Col. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA MILDRED DELI: NY Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law MISTRAS GROUP: Settled Viceral and Kruger Action MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bankr. Court Can't Rule on Equitable Mootness NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Song" Denied NEW MEXICO: Human Services Dept. Faces Contempt Suit NUTIVA: Faces "Elnathan" Suit Seeking to Enforce Cal. Wage Laws O'CHARLEY'S LLC: "Otis" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval OIL STATES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Seeking Payment of OT Wages PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Case PNC CAPITAL: Faces "Martin" Suit in N.D. Ohio PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D.N.Y. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Dismissal of 3226701 Canada Case Sought R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Hargrave" Suit in E.D. Virginia ROYAL THAI: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D.N.Y. SAMPSON TREE: Faces "Edenfield" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA SAN LEANDRO: Faces "Cooper" Suit in Calif. Over Sale Contract SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Court Dismissed Merger Lawsuit SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Law SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits SLOAN VALVE: Flushing System Makes Toilets Explode, Suit Alleges SMARTHEAT INC: Settled All Claims in US Securities Class Action SNAP-ON CREDIT: Face "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill. SOCA FUNDING: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits SONY: To Pay $125MM to Settle Indirect Buyers' Claims SOUTHERN LANDWORX: Faces "Ayala" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Markow Seeks Review From "Levitt" Suit Ruling ST. LOUIS RAMS: Suit Stays in Federal Court, 8th Cir. Ruled STELLAR ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits TBK 82 CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay TEXAS FINANCIAL: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits TROY CAPITAL: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Curiel May Allow "Cohen" Suit to Proceed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cordas" Suit for Deceptive Practices UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Cancellation Fees UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Blasts Background Check on Plaintiff UNIFUND CCR: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits VION HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits VXI GLOBAL: Phone Operator Alleges Violations FLSA, OMFWSA & OPPA WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ferrareze" Lawsuit Under FLSA WILLIAMS ZINHAM: Must Comply With FDCPA Disclosure Requirements WORLDWIDE ASSET: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Ex-Wrestlers' Suit Over Brain Injuries YOLO, CA: Faces "Alder" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA ********* 1ST AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Falsely Guarantees Job, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action accuses Los Angeles-based 1st American Automotive Sales Training of charging $695 for a class they claim, falsely, will guarantee them a job. AKAL SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying OT to Air Security Officer --------------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOTT GELBER, & all others similarly situated v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating the minimum wage provisions and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Gelber is employed by the Defendant as an air security officer. He is responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights back to their home country. Akal Security Inc. is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in New Mexico. The Company maintains an operations facility in Miami, Florida, where the Plaintiff works. The Defendant is a government contractor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Sarelson, Esq. KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305) 330-6090 E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com ALAVI FOUNDATION: 2nd Cir. Reverses Ruling in Terrorism Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the U.S. government and victims of terrorist attacks cannot acquire a 36-story tower in Manhattan and other Iran-linked assets without a trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found in twin rulings on July 20. Plaintiffs-Appellees ("Plaintiffs") are direct or indirect victims of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran"), against which they hold unsatisfied money judgments. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to enforce these judgments against Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company (together, "Defendants"),1 pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act ("TRIA"). In one of the rulings, the Second Circuit said, "This appeal requires us to determine whether Defendants qualify, as a matter of law, as the "foreign state" of Iran or an "agency or instrumentality" thereof, such that Defendants' properties may be turned over to help satisfy Plaintiffs' judgments against Iran under the FSIA. We are also called upon to determine whether, under the TRIA, (1) Defendants qualify, as a matter of law, as Iran or an "agency or instrumentality" thereof insofar as Iran is a "foreign state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism," and (2) Defendants' properties are "blocked assets" that may be turned over to help satisfy Plaintiffs' judgments against Iran." "We conclude that Defendants in this case do not equate to the "foreign state" of Iran for purposes of the FSIA or the TRIA. We further conclude that Defendants cannot be deemed "agencies or instrumentalities" of Iran under the FSIA, but that Defendants' status as "agencies or instrumentalities" of Iran under the TRIA and their properties' status as "blocked assets" under that statute is not foreclosed as a matter of law. Nevertheless, we identify questions of fact that prevent either of these TRIA questions from being decided on summary judgment. Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment award in favor of Plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." In 2009, federal authorities seized a Midtown skyscraper located at 650 Fifth Ave. and other properties in Maryland, Texas, California, Virginia and New York allegedly tied to the Iranian government. Prosecutors also sought the forfeiture of several bank accounts said to be linked to Iran. In 2013, the government won a federal judge's ruling for the forfeiture of the properties, and dozens of families filed class- action lawsuits a year later demanding that the sale of these assets compensate the victims of Iran-sponsored attacks. Lead plaintiff Jason Kirschenbaum was maimed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem that his parents and siblings believed had the Islamic Republic's fingerprints on it. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who presided over both cases, found in favor of the government and the families without a trial. On July 20, the Second Circuit unanimously overturned these decisions because it is unclear that the majority owner of the buildings knew of any sanctions violation. There is "ample evidence," on the other hand, of the New York City skyscraper's historic ties to Iran, the appeals court found. In 1973, then-Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi created a foundation in his name to acquire the coveted address. The state- owned Bank Melli loaned the foundation $42 million two years later for the construction of what became known as the Piaget Building. Shortly after the shah's overthrow in 1979, Iran's post- revolutionary regime scrubbed away the former leader's name from the organization behind the address, rebranding it the Mostazafan Foundation. The entity is currently known as the Alavi Foundation, which also owns several other properties across the United States. The 650 Fifth Ave. Co., a partnership between Alavi and the Jersey Island-based Assa Company, was created a decade after the revolution to help the owners lighten their U.S. tax load. After former President Bill Clinton imposed broad sanctions on Iran in 1995, Bank Melli formally divested its ownership of Assa, but prosecutors say the Iranian bank hid a 40 percent interest in the property through a chain of straw entities. Judge Richard Wesley questioned whether Alavi knew of these transactions, in an 88-page opinion. "While the record admits no factual dispute as to Bank Melli's ownership and control of Assa after 1995, there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether claimant Alavi knew of that ownership," he wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. Alavi's former president Farshid Jahedi received a three-month sentence for obstruction of justice, after prosecutors charged him with destroying documents about Bank Melli's relationship with the foundation. On remand, federal prosecutors may lose access to a larger trove of evidence -- including Alavi's computers, electronic storage devices, servers and more than 200 boxes of documents -- that authorities found during a December 2008 search. Finding that the warrant justifying this search may have been unconstitutionally broad, the Second Circuit sent the question back to Judge Forrest to determine whether authorities acted in good faith. In a separate ruling, Judge Wesley found that the families had not yet proven that Alavi, Assa and 650 Fifth Ave. Co. are "instrumentalities" of a declared terrorist entity and whether their properties are "blocked assets" under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Attorney James Bernard, a partner for Strook & Strook & Lavan who represents the families, predicted that his clients would ultimately succeed. "The Second Circuit has now sent the case to trial on several issues," he wrote in a statement. "We look forward to a quick recovery for our client at trial." Attorneys for Alavi and 650 Fifth Ave. Co. did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment July 20. The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://is.gd/9SOSA0 from Leagle.com. The case is, Kirschenbaum v. Alavi Foundation, Docket Nos. 14- 1963(L), 14-1967, 14-1971, 14-1974, 14-1978, 14-1982, 14-1986, 14- 1988, 14-1996, 14-2098 (2nd Cir.). ALL ABOUT LUV-N-CARE: "Moody" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- James Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All About Luv-N-Care Inc., Donna G. Miller individually and Jerry T. Miller individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00519 (E.D. Tex., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate approximately 14 residences for persons with mental or developmental disabilities in and around the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where Plaintiff worked as a House Supervisor. Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq. Mary L. Scott, Esq. James E. Hunnicutt SPENCER SCOTT PLLC Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75240-6271 Tel: (972) 458-5319 Fax: (972) 770-2156 Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com mscott@spencerscottlaw.com jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com ALL IN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit over "All Natural" Label ------------------------------------------------------------- Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that reports that a chemical insecticide was found in legal, organically grown marijuana in Oregon have led to a class action lawsuit in Portland, Ore. -- not against growers, but against the insecticide maker. Guardian mite spray, advertised as an "all natural" product, contains ivermectin -- a conventional pesticide in the avermectin family, Benjamin Efran claims in a July 14 lawsuit in Multnomah County Court. He sued All In Enterprises, and its officers Michael Delamater, both of Illinois, and Thomas McCathron, of Michigan. According to the lawsuit, the company listed the ingredients as "cinnamon oil, lemon grass oil, citric acid, yeast extract, sunflower lecithin, and water." Guardian was primarily used to kill mites. But the Oregonian newspaper reported on Jan. 15 that "a chemist with OG Analytical discovered the presence of abamectin (a type of avermectin) in cannabis samples submitted by growers who claimed they used organic growing methods. When one grower stated that he used only Guardian, the chemist tested Guardian and detected abamectin," according to the complaint. (Parentheses in complaint.) The Oregon Department of Agriculture then removed Guardian from its list of chemicals that marijuana growers can use, The Oregonian reported. Avermectins can irritate the skin and eyes, interfere with the central nervous system and cause vomiting, tremors and other problems at high doses, according to a pesticide database at http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ According to the Oregonian article, "A man identifying himself as an owner of the Illinois-based company that makes the product said it contains ivermectin, a chemical similar to abamectin. Ivermectin is not listed on the product label as required." The man, whom the newspaper did not identify, "said he did not realize the product label had to include all active ingredients," The Oregonian reported. "We weren't trying to pull anything," he told the newspaper. "We put it in there, and it wasn't on the label and that's our fault." Efran seeks class certification and damages for fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and unfair business practices. A phone number could not be found for Thomas McCathron. Efran is represented by Andrew DeWeese, who did not respond to a voicemail message requesting comment. ALLERGAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Asacol Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise J. Casper granted the dismissal of certain claims in the case captioned IN RE ASACOL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 15-cv-12730-DJC (D. Mass.). Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund (collectively, "Health Fund Plaintiffs"), and Mark Adorney brought the antitrust class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, "Zydus"), Allergan plc, Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, and Warner Chilcott Limited (collectively, "Warner Chilcott"). The plaintiffs alleged that Warner Chilcott's product hopping scheme and a reverse payment settlement agreement between Warner Chilcott and Zydus constitute monopolization (Count I) and combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade (Count II), respectively, under various state laws. Zydus moved to dismiss Count II, and Warner Chilcott moved to dismiss the entire complaint. The plaintiffs moved to strike materials attached in support of Warner Chilcott's motion to dismiss. Judge Casper ruled as follows: -- Zydus's motion to dismiss Count II was allowed, and Warner Chilcott's motion was allowed in part and denied in part in that: -- All Count II claims were dismissed; -- Monopolization claims (Count I) under Arizona, Nevada and Utah law were dismissed without prejudice in case the plaintiffs can comply or specifically plead how they complied with each state's notice requirements; -- Claims under Missouri, Massachusetts and Vermont law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs were dismissed; -- Claims under Hawaii law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs were dismissed, but the Hawaii monopolization claim (Count I) brought by Mark Adorney was dismissed without prejudice in case he can comply or specifically plead how he complied with the notice requirements; and -- The motions to dismiss were denied in all other respects. -- The plaintiffs' motion to strike was denied; and -- The plaintiffs' motions to seal their opposition to Zydus's motion to dismiss, and for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of their motion to strike, were allowed nunc pro tunc. A full-text copy of Judge Casper's July 20, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/jDU7d7 from Leagle.com. Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by David P. Barclay -- dbarclay@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Diana J. Zinser -- dzinser@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., pro hac vice, Eric D. Barton -- ebarton@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kodroff -- jkodroff@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, John A. Macoretta -- jmacoretta@srkw-law.com -- Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., pro hac vice, Peter J. Mougey -- pmougey@levinlaw.com -- Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, pro hac vice, Tyler W. Hudson -- thudson@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Glen DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. Wisonsin Masons' Health Care Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Glen DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bethany R. Turke -- brt@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP, pro hac vice, Glen DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Justin N. Boley -- jnb@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice & Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Devona L. Wells -- dlwells@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo & Glen DeValerio, Berman DeValerio. AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund, Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. Mark Adorney, Plaintiff, represented by Glen DeValerio, Berman DeValerio. Allergan Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC., Defendants, represented by Alison Hanstead, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice, Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas L. Wilkins, White & Case LLP, Peter J. Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin C. Adam, White & Case, LLP. Warner Chilcott Limited, Defendant, represented by Alison Hanstead, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice, Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Peter J. Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin C. Adam, White & Case, LLP. Cadila Healthcare Limited, Defendant, represented by Andy J. Miller, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Randall A. Hack, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice,Stephen G. Huggard, Locke Lord LLP & Elizabeth H. Kelly, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Allergan, PLC, Defendant, represented by Alison Hanstead, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, LLP, Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice &Nicholas L. Wilkins, White & Case LLP. Allergan, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice. Allergan, PLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Adam, White & Case, LLP. ALLIED INSURANCE: "Laningham" Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Use ----------------------------------------------------------------- R. Bradley Van Laningham d/b/a Bradley Law Group and Van Laningham and Associates, PLLC d/b/a Bradley Law Group, Plaintiffs, v. Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Insurance Company, AMCO Insurance Company, Depositors Insurance Company and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00948 (M.D.N.C., July 13, 2016), seeks damages for breach of contract and attorney fees incurred. Plaintiff alleges that Bradley Van Laningham and the other defendant parties used information from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles crash investigations to obtain names and addresses of individuals involved for purposes of distributing mail advertising legal services and were marked as "This is an advertisement for legal services." The plaintiffs claim that their names and addresses on their driver's licenses, vehicle registration cards and records constitute personal information protected, and that such information was used without their consent. Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Pinto, Esq. Deborah J. Bowers, Esq. PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC 3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410 Telephone: (336) 282-8848 Facsimile: (336) 282-8409 Email: rpinto@pckb-law.com dbowers@pckb-law.com AMERICAN FAMILY: "Riggins" Suit Transferred from W.D. Mo to Utah ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darnita Riggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and Xactware Solutions, the Plaintiff, v. American Family Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14- cv-04171, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District for the District of Utah (Central). The Utah District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-mc-00818-CW to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Clark Waddoups. American Family is a private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage, as well as investment and retirement-planning products. Darnita Riggins is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. David T. Butsch, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 S Bemiston Ste 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863 5700 - and - Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS PC 168 N Meramec Ave Ste 150 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 899 9790 Xactware Solutions is represented by: Bryon J. Benevento, Esq. Christopher J. Martinez, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY (UT) 136 S Main St Ste 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1685 Telephone: (801) 933 8958 E-mail: benevento.bryon@dorsey.com martinez.chris@dorsey.com The Defendant is represented by: James D. Griffin, Esq. Jeffrey A. Kennard, Esq. Lisa Bolliger, Esq. SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD GRIFFIN PC 1100 Walnut St Ste 1950 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 268 9400 E-mail: jak@sakfirm.com - and - Rhyddid Watkins, Esq. Margaret Young Cass, Esq. Michael S. McCarthy, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 1700 Lincoln St 3200 Wells Fargo Ctr Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 607 3500 E-mail michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Doesn't Cover Name-Brand Medication, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Dunn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Anthem Blue Cross refuses to cover name-brand medication, even when there is no equivalent generic or the generic is ineffective, a subscriber claims in San Francisco federal class action. K. F. Petty says in her 16-page complaint against Anthem and Blue Cross of California that in 2007, she was a graduate student and enrolled in Anthem's student plan. She was treated for a medical condition requiring medication -- listed in the complaint as "Drug X" to protect her privacy -- which had no generic equivalent at the time. Petty says that a few months later and without notifying her, Anthem changed her prescription to a substitute generic medication which contained the same active ingredient as the brand name she had been taking. Her pharmacy was notified of the change, and the next time she filled her prescription she was given the substitute medication instead. The problem, Petty says, is that "none of these substitutes were pharmaceutically the same or therapeutically as effective" for her condition. On subsequent prescriptions, Petty's doctor specified that she should receive the name-brand Drug X rather than the equivalent generic and wrote a letter to Anthem "outlining the medical necessity of Drug X." Anthem continued to refuse to cover the cost of the name-brand medication, Petty says in her complaint. Throughout her coverage with Anthem, Petty says she had to choose between paying full price for the brand medication or taking the less effective generic substitute covered by Anthem. Petty represents a class of Anthem clients who have had "to use non-equivalent and/or generic drugs even when the original prescribed drugs are different and medically necessary for proper treatment," according to the complaint. She says that "Anthem's contracts contain language that it uses to exclude coverage, (i.e., 'brand-name drugs unless a generic equivalent does not exist or if your physician requests no substitutions'), members of the class and California subclass are entitled to coverage for 'brand-name drugs' (such as Drug X) since no generic equivalent exists for these medications and/or their physicians have requested that there be no substitutions for the drugs prescribed." Anthem's practice of "using an undisclosed criteria at variance with the Evidence of Coverage" violates California law and has caused harm to Petty and thousands of other Californians, according to the complaint. Petty is suing for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and violation of California's unfair business practices law. She is represented by Michael McShane and Ling Kuang of the San Francisco firm Audet & Partners. Anthem spokesman Darrel Ng said in an email that he was not familiar with the case. ARCHER DANIELS: Class Suit Filed Over Horse Poisoning ----------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that horse owners claim in court their horses died from Archer- Daniels-Midland horse feed contaminated with monensin, a chemical known to be poisonous to horses and a regular additive in cattle feed. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company allegedly cuts costs by manufacturing its horse feed products in the same facilities where it makes cattle feed. Cattle feed contains monensin, a chemical additive used to increase weight, but it is toxic to humans and poisonous to horses, according to court papers. Monensin poisoning gradually weakens the horse's heart muscles, creating the potential for sudden heart failure. Lead plaintiffs Beth Berarov and Annelisa Bindra say several of their horses died because they fed them ADM feed. Others allegedly had to be euthanized, and the ones that survived cannot be safely ridden because of their weakened hearts. "ADM's choice to manufacture horse feed and supplements in the same facility as monensin-laced cattle feed poses an extraordinarily high, unacceptable, and undisclosed risk of cross- contamination to purchasers of its horse feed products," according to a class-action lawsuit filed July 19, in Northern Illinois Federal Court. The risk is exacerbated by the fact that modern medicine cannot detect whether a living horse has been exposed to monensin. ADM makes Grostrong vitamin products, Juniorglo, Primeglo, and Seniorglo feeds, and Moorglo and Healthyglo fat supplements. It does not disclose the possibility of monensin poisoning on its feed bags, and markets the product using the tagline, "Doing what's right for the horse," July 19 class action states. Berarov and Bindra say the slogan is deceptive given that the company is well aware its feed contains traces of a deadly additive - but it doesn't tell consumers. In a press release following the deaths of horses at Camelot Farms, where Bindra stabled her horse, ADM acknowledged the possibility of cross-contamination in its feeds, but said the levels are far below what could harm a horse. The plaintiff horse owners dispute this assertion, pointing out alleged inconsistencies in ADM's calculations and claiming that ADM does not mention what harm the horses may suffer short of death. "ADM knew all the facts demonstrating that the products were falsely and misleadingly advertised, and that it had a duty to disclose and warn purchasers about its high-risk manufacturing methods and the products' potential or actual contamination with monensin," the complaint states. The horse owners seek damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, products liability and unjust enrichment. They are represented by Patrick Muench with Bailey & Glasser in Chicago. ADM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on July 20. AURELIO RODRIGUEZ: Sued by Ex-Housekeeper Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- ANA RAQUEL LOPEZ ALONSO, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. AURELIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:16-cv-23163-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2016), arises from alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. From April 8, 2015, through June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours a week for the Defendant but was never paid the extra half time rate any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a domestic live-out housekeeper during the class period. Aurelio Rodriguez resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and was the FLSA employer for the Plaintiff's period of employment. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. --------------------------------------------------------- Thadeaus G Scharf III, on behalf of himself and all other Arkansas residents similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avid Life Media Inc., an Ontario Corporation, Avid Dating Life Inc., doing business as Ashley Madison, an Ontario corporation, and Noel Biderman, the Defendants, Case No. 13CV-16-00013-6, was removed from the Cleveland County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00225-DPM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr. Avid Life is a social entertainment company that operates online social networking and dating communities for women and men worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Davidson, Esq. DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD. Post Office Box 1300 Little Rock, AR 72203-1300 Telephone: (501) 374 9977 E-mail: skipd@dlf-ar.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC 2226 Cottondale, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372 1300 E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com - and - David Louis Gershner, Esq. Stephanie A. Linam, Esq. DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD. Post Office Box 1300 Little Rock, AR 72203-1300 Telephone: (501) 374 9977 E-mail: davidg@dlf-ar.com stephaniealinam@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: E. B. Chiles IV, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Telephone: (501) 379 1700 E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com BEEFALO BOB'S: "Parks" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandie Parks, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Beefalo Bob's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02570 (D. Md., July 13, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, liquidated and statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland's Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant owns and operates Beefalo Bob's restaurant in Baltimore, Maryland where Plaintiff worked as a server and bartender. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard B. Hoffman, Esq. 600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304 Rockville, MD 20852 Tel: (301) 251-3752 Fax: (301) 251-3753 BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------- Christopher Oddo, Philip Brucato and Michael Lennon, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04267 (D.N.J. July 13, 2016), seeks overtime pay and damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Bimbo operates a bakery where Plaintiffs were employed as Route Sales Representatives. Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Phone: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Court Narrows Claims in "Tapia-Matos" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned TAMMY TAPIA-MATOS, Plaintiff, v. CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM, LTD., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-6726 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Furman dismissed the plaintiffs' claims concerning the defendants' statements regarding the quartz content of Caesarstone's products for failure to plausibly allege a material misstatement or omission. By contrast, Judge Furman denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' claims concerning the defendants' statements regarding the price increase for quartz and gross margins. A full-text copy of Judge Furman's July 20, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/T4Aywv from Leagle.com. Caesarstone Ltd, formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot-Yam, Ltd., is an Israeli company that makes kitchen countertops and other surfaces out of quartz. In the putative securities fraud class action, investors alleged that Caesarstone, acting in part through its Chief Executive Officer, Yosef Shiran, and its Chief Financial Officer, Yair Averbuch, made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding increases in the price of quartz and the quartz content of the company's products. Anthony Lanza, Ruth Lanza, Johnson Yang, Micro World Corp., Mark Pawlitschek, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Michele S. Carino -- mcarino@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Tammy Tapia-Matos, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Anthony Felzen, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Caesarstone Sdot-Yam, LTD., Yosef Shiran, Yair Averbuch, Defendants, represented by George T. Conway, III -- gtconway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Christopher Raphael Deluzio -- crdeluzio@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Says No Timetable Governing Lac-Megantic Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no timetable governing the conduct of the lawsuit related to the Lac- Megantic rail accident has been ordered by the Superior Court of Quebec. On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") and/or its subsidiary, Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC", and collectively with MMA, the "MMA Group") derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec on a section of railway line owned by the MMA Group. The previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after that interchange MMA Group exercised exclusive control over the train. Following this incident, the Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks of Quebec issued an order directing certain named parties to recover the contaminants and to clean up and decontaminate the derailment site. CP was added as a named party on August 14, 2013 (the "Amended Cleanup Order"). CP has sought an administrative appeal of the Amended Cleanup Order to the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. The proceedings before the Administrative tribunal have been stayed until September 2016. Directly related to this matter, the Province of Quebec filed a lawsuit against CP before the Quebec Superior Court on July 6, 2015 in which it claims $409 million for the damages sustained by the province as a result of the expenses incurred following the derailment, including costs incurred for the work carried out pursuant to the Amended Cleanup Order. The province alleges that CP had custody or control of the contaminants that were discharged in Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013, and that CP was otherwise negligent and therefore is solidarily (joint and severally) liable with the other third parties responsible for the accident. The province's lawsuit has been stayed until September 12, 2016. Also directly related to the this matter, the Quebec Minister of Sustainable Development and Environment has served a Notice of Claim on July 5, 2016 claiming nearly $95 million in compensation from CP for having to carry out the cleanup measures set out in the Amended Cleanup Order, alleging that CP had refused or neglected to carry out same. These proceedings are duplicative, in whole or in part. A class action lawsuit has also been filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on behalf of a class of persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating a business in or physically present in Lac-Megantic (the "Class Action"). The lawsuit seeks damages caused by the derailment including for wrongful deaths, personal injuries, and property damages. CP was added as a defendant on August 16, 2013. On May 8, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized the institution of the Class Action as against CP and as against the shipper, Western Petroleum, and the shipper's parent, World Fuel Services (collectively, the "World Fuel Defendants"). The World Fuel Defendants have since settled. No timetable governing the conduct of this lawsuit has been ordered by the Superior Court of Quebec. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Class Action and Mass Action Pending Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that there are a class action and a mass action instituted Texas and wrongful death and personal injury actions instituted in Illinois and Maine. All the various lawsuits have been removed to federal court and have since been consolidated in Maine. These actions generally charge CP with negligence in the misclassification and mis- packaging (that is the use of inappropriate DOT-111 tank cars). Motions to dismiss have been filed and heard regarding jurisdiction and venue. Decisions on CP's motions and other parties' cross-motions are pending. CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Bee" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned BEE, DENNING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP, et al., Defendant. DANIELA TORMAN, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 13-cv-02654- BAS(WVG), 14-cv-02915-BAS(WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement reached between the parties and for certification of settlement classes. The class action was commenced on November 5, 2013, by Bee, Denning, Inc., d/b/a Practice Performance Group, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Capital Alliance Group seeking relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Bee amended the complaint one month later to add Narin Charanvattanakit as a defendant and Gregory Chick as a plaintiff. Because the defendants have insufficient resources to grant monetary relief to the class members, the settlement agreement provides only injunctive relief to the settlement classes against further violations of the TCPA by the defendants. The parties have also agreed to an injunction oversight and reporting procedure defined under the settlement agreement. Judge Bashant appointed the plaintiffs as class representatives of the settlement classes, and Beth E. Terrell and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Candice E. Renka and Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, as class counsel to represent the settlement class. A fairness hearing will be held on November 14, 2016 at 10:30 A.M. A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's July 20, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/D0xDBZ from Leagle.com. Bee, Denning, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell - - bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Mary B. Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Whitney B. Stark -- whitney@mechaniclaw.com -- Mechanic Law Office. Gregory Chick, Plaintiff, represented by Mary B. Reiten, Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Daniela Torman, Plaintiff, represented by Candice E. Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing, Esfand Y. Nafisi, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary Edward Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP & Scott A. Marquis -- smarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing. Capital Alliance Group, Defendant, represented by Gene S. Stone -- gstone@homan-stone.com -- Homan & Stone. CARELINK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Downie" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE DOWNIE v. CARELINK, INC. and VINSENT ROBINSON, And JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05868-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants, alleging that the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for work for which they did not receive minimum wages and for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Carelink, Inc., is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business located in Floral Park, New York. Vinsent Robinson is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of Carelink. The Defendants are an employment agency that sent the Plaintiff to work as a home health aide/maid for numerous customers located in New York City and Nassau County. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Coudert Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com CAREY WATERMARK: To Defend Against Multiple Wage & Hour Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, that multiple wage and hour class-action lawsuits have been filed against various Marriott-branded hotels in California, which purport to extend to all Marriott-branded hotels in the state, which would include this property. None of these lawsuits has been certified as a class, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against such an expansion. On July 13, 2016, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated ("CWI 2") completed the acquisition of the San Jose Marriott from SP6 San Jose Hotel Lessee, LLC, an unaffiliated third party. The 510-guestroom San Jose Marriott will continue to be managed by Marriott International, Inc. CWI 2's total investment in the property is approximately $167.5 million, including a $154.0 million purchase price and approximately $7.7 million of acquisition-related costs and $5.8 million of planned capital improvements. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits ----------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08638 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Cavalry Portfolio is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail CERES INC: "Roberts" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Roberts individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton and Ceres, Inc., Defendants, Case No. BC626808 (Cal. Super., July 13, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment of a merger, damages, attorney fees and costs for breach of fiduciary duties. Land O' Lakes, through its wholly owned subsidiary Roman Merger Sub offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Ceres in an all-cash transaction for $ 0.40 per share in cash. This undervalues the company which Plaintiff claims to have $1.10 per share. Plaintiff is represented by: Adam McCall, Esq. Joseph Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 445 South FIgueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Fax: (202) 333-2121 Phone: (213) 985-7290 Email: amccall@zlk.com CERES INC: 3 Class Suits Filed Over Land O'Lakes Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Ceres, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against three class action lawsuits over a proposed merger deal. On June 16, 2016, the Company, Land O'Lakes, Inc., a cooperative corporation incorporated under the laws of Minnesota ("Land O'Lakes"), and Roman Merger Sub, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub commenced on July 1, 2016, a cash tender offer (the "Offer") to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock at a price of $0.40 per share in cash (the "Common Offer Price"), without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, following the consummation of the Offer, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company as the surviving corporation as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Land O'Lakes. Following the commencement of the Offer, three putative class action lawsuits were filed challenging the proposed transaction. Each of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles - Central District: -- Gary Stryder, Leo Nguyen and Rajesh Joshi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ceres, Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc., Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, and Richard Hamilton, Case No. BC626066 (filed July 5, 2016) (the "Stryder Action"); -- Knox Varela, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Ceres, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton, Land O'Lakes, Inc. and Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC626611 (filed July 11, 2016) (the "Varela Action"); and -- Benjamin Roberts, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton, and Ceres, Inc., Case No. BC626808 (filed July 13, 2016). The Stryder Action and the Varela Action name as defendants the Company, the Board, Merger Sub and Land O'Lakes. The Roberts Action names as defendants the Company and the Board. The Actions generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to preclusive deal- protection devices. The Stryder Action and the Varela Action generally allege, among other things, that Land O'Lakes and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Varela Action and the Roberts Action also allege that the Company's the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on July 1, 2016, as amended, omits or misstates certain material information. The complaints generally seek, among other things: (i) declaration as a class action; (ii) an order enjoining the proposed transactions; (iii) rescission, to the extent implemented, of the Merger Agreement or rescissory damages; and (iv) an award of fees and costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Actions and believes the lawsuits are without merit. Ceres, Inc. (Company) is an agricultural biotechnology company that develops and markets seeds and traits to produce crops for feed, forages, sugar and other markets. CHC GROUP: 2 N.Y. Securities Class Action Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------ CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the two securities class action lawsuits that were previously filed against the Company have been consolidated into a single action, Rudman et al. v. CHC Group et al., which is pending in federal district court for the Southern District of New York. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 6, 2015. The Company said, "The amended complaint alleges that we and others failed to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our major customers, Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain contracts due to the global stand-down of Airbus H225 aircraft. The amended complaint seeks class treatment and unspecified damages. We have filed a motion to dismiss and are awaiting a hearing date on that motion. We maintain adequate insurance to respond to these complaints. Moreover, we dispute the allegations in the complaints and will vigorously defend against them. At April 30, 2016, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, financial condition and results of operations." CHECKR INC: Faces "Scott" Suit in E.D. Penn. -------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against CHECKR, INC. The case is captioned DEATRI SCOTT ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff. v. CHECKR, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03918-GJP (E.D. Penn., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gerald J. Pappert. Checkr provides RESTful API, an automated background screenings and driving records. Its color-coded dashboard browses and evaluates background reports that include national and county criminal records, driving history, SSN verification, and previous addresses. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC LAND TITLE BLDG 19TH FL 100 S. Broad St Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735 8600 Facsimile: (215) 940 8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com CHICAGO: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over Streaming Services Tax --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Chicago residents scored a victory in court July 21, when a judge ruled that three counts of their class-action lawsuit against the city's tax on streaming media services like Netflix can proceed. The city started collecting its 9 percent amusement tax on Internet services such as Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Amazon Prime and Xbox Live last September, the same month the plaintiffs filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court. The tax is projected to bring in $12 million a year. Judge Carl Anthony Walker on July 21, granted the city's motion to dismiss the first three counts of the lawsuit, which challenged its comptroller's authority to impose a new tax. Walker said in his opinion that since the city amended the amusement tax in November 2015, "whether the comptroller exceeded his authority by adopting the ruling is moot." However, Walker found that the residents' complaint "alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action" for the other three counts -- violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, or ITFA, as well as violations of the Illinois Constitution's Uniformity Clause and the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. The judge denied a motion to dismiss those claims. The residents claim Chicago violated the ITFA, which says a municipality cannot impose "multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce." They also say the city is attempting to tax services that may not even be used inside its boundaries. At a June hearing on the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center said live concerts are not taxed at the same rate as streaming services, a clear violation of the ITFA. Schwab added that "if you have a mobile device, you can use Internet services anywhere," despite the tax being based on billing address -- meaning Chicago residents would be taxed for things they didn't even do inside Chicago. The city, he said, "cannot tax things outside its jurisdiction." City attorney Weston Hanscom argued at the June hearing that although 50 years ago "there was no question where the venue was" where amusements took place, "technology has developed" and the city is merely playing catch up. The law "does not prohibit taxing products just because they use the Internet," Hanscom added. "It's excellent that the judge didn't dismiss the case on its merits," Schwab told Courthouse News on July 21. "We're very happy about that." Chicago's legal department did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment July 21. The case captioned, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES SECTION, MICHAEL LABELL, JARED LABELL, SILAS PEPPLE, NATALIE BEZEK, EMILY ROSE, and BRYANT JACKSON-GREEN, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and DAN WIDAWSKY, in his official capacity as Comptroller of the City of Chicago, Case No. 2015 CH 13399, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. CIOX HEALTH: Faces "Finfrock" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against CIOX Health, LLC. The case is captioned Edwyn Finfrock, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIOX Health, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-05777 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016). CIOX Health, LLC provides healthcare information solutions. The Plaintiff appears pro se. CITIBANK NA: Nichols Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Shirley Nichols filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Shirley Nichols v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01215-DSF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 4, 2016, the complaint is brought by the Plaintiff, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged unpaid overtime wages and penalties under the California Labor Code. The appellate case is captioned as Shirley Nichols v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No. 16-56042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL APC 550 S. Hope St. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com Defendants-Appellees Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Citimortgage, Inc., are represented by: Daryl S. Landy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 399-7122 Facsimile: (949) 399-7000 E-mail: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com - and - Samuel S. Shaulson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6718 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com CLEAN HARBORS: "Gibson" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned CARLA GIBSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, v. BIOLAB, INC., a/k/a BIO-LAB, INC., a/k/a BIO LAB, INC., Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-1035 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey has adopted the Report and Recommendation filed on June 28, 2016 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Judge Bryant recommended that the plaintiffs' motion to remand be granted and that the plaintiffs' case be remanded to the Circuit Court of Union Country, because the defendants' May 9, 2016 removal was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). More specifically, Judge Bryant found that the defendant removed the action more than 30 days after receiving correspondence from the plaintiffs that unambiguously demonstrated that federal jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. A full-text copy of Judge Hickey's July 20, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/micJaq from Leagle.com. Carla Gibson, Windell Lawson, Joyce Powell, Jeff Rogers, Kathy Wood, Lillie Woods, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen P. Roberts, Attorney at Law, David P. Price, Price Law Firm, Phillip A. Stone -- pstone@southarklaw.com -- VICKERY & SMART, PLLC, Robert L. Depper, Jr., Depper Law Firm & Samuel E. Ledbetter -- sam@mcmathlaw.com -- McMath Woods P.A.. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., represented by Alexander Cale Block -- cblock@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm & John S. Cherry, Jr. -- jcherry@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A.. Biolab, Inc., represented by Kevin A. Crass -- crass@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark & Roger Christopher Lawson -- lawson@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The case is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01064-RCM (W.D. Penn., July 20, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Robert C. Mitchell. Costco Wholesale is an American membership-only warehouse club that provides a wide selection of merchandise. It is currently the largest membership-only warehouse club in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com CRESUD SOCIEDAD: "Tomka" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TOMKA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRESUD SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, COMERCIAL, INMOBILIARIA, FINANCIERA Y AGROPECUARIA, ALEJANDRO GUSTAVO ELSZTAIN, EDUARDO SERGIO ELSZTAIN, SAUL ZANG, and MATIAS IVAN GAIVIRONSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05748-UA (E.D. Penn., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements. Cresud is an agricultural company that produces basic agricultural commodities in Brazil and other Latin American countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A, Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Ave, Ste 400, Jenkintown, PA 19046 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com CSX CORP: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that a class certification hearing is scheduled for September 2016 in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue. In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing is scheduled for September 2016. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that particular period. CYTRX CORPORATION: Class-Action Settlement Completed ---------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that the class-action settlement the Company announced in December 2015 was completed on or about May 25, 2016 with the issuance of 1,561,578 shares of the Company's common stock valued at $4.5 million, or $2.8817 a share, and payment of $4 million in cash, of which $3.5 million was paid by the Company's insurance carriers and $500,000 was paid out of company funds. DEL TACO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held July 26 -------------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which is subject to final Court approval on July 26, 2016. On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"), relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purported to be brought as a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the then proposed Business Combination and in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint further alleged that DTH and Levy Acquisition Sponsor LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's pre-merger directors. The Complaint sought (a) a declaration that the Company's pre- merger directors breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Business Combination until corrective disclosures were made; (c) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees. On May 19, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which is subject to final Court approval on July 26, 2016. DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Wage and Hour Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that in July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of June 14, 2016 (Successor). DEL TACO: Defending Suit by California Hourly Employees ------------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that a former Del Taco employee in March 2014 filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. DELTA AIR: Bag Fee Suit in Georgia Wins Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the first bag fee antitrust litigation against the Company and AirTran Airways ("AirTran"). In May-July 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran, alleging that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12, 2008. The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia. On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is vigorously defending these lawsuits. DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Revives Portion of Subprime Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that handed a Supreme Court lifeline, shareholders behind consolidated lawsuits accusing Deutsche Bank of misleading them on $5.4 billion in subprime securities can advance part of their claims, a federal judge ruled. In 2009, the final year of the subprime mortgage crisis, six class-action lawsuits poured into Manhattan Federal Court alleging securities fraud on stock offerings sold during the first year the housing market plunged. After three unsuccessful attempts to advance the lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court's unrelated decision last year in the case of pharmaceutical giant Omnicare also opened a window for the Deutsche shareholders. In the Omnicare case, the Cincinnati-based subsidiary of CVS Health was accused of misleading shareholders about how a rash of whistleblower lawsuits alleging false claims to Medicare and Medicaid would affect the company. Omnicare hoped that couching their optimistic forecasts with "we think" and "we believe" would immunize the company from liability, but Justice Elena Kagan mocked such corporate incantations as "those magic words." "Thus, Omnicare's view would punch a hole in the statute for half- truths in the form of opinion statements," she wrote. On Aug. 7, 2015, an attorney for one of Deutsche Bank's shareholders asked U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts to revisit his clients' case in light of the high court's ruling. The bid succeeded on July 25, as Batts revived claims over Deutsche Bank's November 2007 and February 2008 securities offerings. Here, Batts said, the shareholders "sufficiently alleged that defendants have failed to disclose [the] known trend and the manner in which it might reasonably be expected to materially impact [the] company's overall financial position.'" "Defendants have not identified or directed the court to any disclosures that may satisfy DB's duty under Item 303 for the November 2007 and February 2008 offerings," the 100-page opinion states. But the judge found the German bank's disclosures passed muster for the May and June 2007 offerings. Reuters reported that the claims given the green light involve $2.55 billion in securities, and those dismissed add up to $2.9 billion. Attorneys for Deutsche and one of the shareholders did not respond to emailed requests for comment July 26. The case is, In re DEUTSCHE BANK AG SECURITIES LITIGATION, 09 CV 1714 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.). DIRECTV: Illegaly Debited Customer's Bank Account, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an indignant customer claims in a class action in Fresno, Calif. that DirecTV illegally took $666 from his bank account after he canceled its service. Mark Bieber says DirecTV debited his bank account without the consent required by the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. He sued the company on July 17 in Federal court. Bieber says his wife signed up with DirecTV in February, but within a month asked it to cancel the service and come pick up its equipment. But rather than do that, he says, "Defendant instead withdrew six hundred and sixty six dollars and eighty three cents ($666.83) from plaintiff's account without his permission." Bieber claims that DirecTV has a history of doing this. DirecTV says on its website that a 2014 survey ranked it as No. 1 in customer satisfaction among all cable and satellite providers. The Courthouse News database lists 322 lawsuits against DirecTV since January 2014, of which 75 were class actions. Bieber seeks class certification and statutory damages of $1,000 per class member, plus attorney fees and costs. He is represented by Todd Friedman in Beverly Hills. Attempts to contact DirecTV for comment were unsuccessful, despite 10 phones calls to customer service numbers and the company's office of general counsel. DOLPHIN TOWING: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DAYRON RODRIGUEZ and MARQUIS WALLACE, individually, and on behalf of all other employees of Defendants similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOLPHIN TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., a Florida corporation, and ROBERTO NODARSE, JR., and XAVIER NODARSE, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23125-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as much as 72 hours per week for the Defendants, but were only paid a salary of approximately $500.00 per week, which means that they were paid only $6.94 per hour, including overtime hours. Dolphin Towing is located at Miami, Florida engaged in towing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: FOWLER RODRIGUEZ LLP Santiago J. Padilla, Esq. Fowler Rodriguez LLP 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 364 8400 Facsimile: (786) 364 8401 E-Mail: spadilla@frfirm.com DOORDASH INC: "Bassknight" Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in San Francisco claiming that Doordash marks up the prices of restaurant food it delivers was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice July 26 by the filers. The case captioned, LEAH BASSKNIGHT, On Behalf of Herself, and All Others Similarly Situation, Plaintiff, vs. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant., Case No. 3:16-cv-01853 JD (N.D. Cal.). EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Sued in Md. Over False False Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM SPONN, Individually on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 7B West Mystic Avenue Mystic, CT 06355, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS, INC., HQ: 400 Professional Drive, Suite 400 Gaithersburg, MD 2087, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02625- RWT (D. Md., July 19, 2016), seeks remedies pursuant to the federal securities laws. The Defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial prospects. Specifically, Emergent claimed the U.S. government's strong and growing demand for BioThrax (TM) was keeping the Company on track to receive a renewal of its lucrative 5-year exclusive anthrax vaccine procurement contract with the U.S. government. Emergent also repeatedly emphasized the U.S. government's implied ongoing strong -- even growing -- demand for BioThrax (TM) in light of the U.S. government's funding of Emergent' s massive expansion of its BioThrax production facility, claiming it would enable the Company to manufacture some 20-25 million additional doses of BioThrax annually, primarily to be sold to the U.S. government over the following five year period in order to build the U.S. govenm1ents' Strategic National Stockpile of Emergent' s anthrax vaccine to 75 million doses. Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company. The company's primary source of revenues is sales of its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed product, BioThrax (TM) (anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed), an anthrax vaccine, to the U.S. government. Emergent's anthrax vaccine is the only one licensed by the FDA, giving the Company a virtual monopoly over anthrax vaccines, and the U.S. govermnent has historically purchased almost all of the Company's BioThrax (TM) production. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana W. Mckee, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962 1030 Facsimile: (410) 385 0869 E-mail: dwm@browngold.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Mary Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367 7100 Facsimile: (631) 367 1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com ENDO HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Mahoney" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety the amended complaint filed in the case captioned SHANNON MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US PARENT), INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a QUALITIEST PHARMACEUTICALS; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., a Delaware corporation; GENERICS BIDCO I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US HOLDCO), INC., a Delaware corporation; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US MIDCO), INC., a Delaware corporation; and VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, No. 15cv9841(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.). Shannon Mahoney brought a putative class action on behalf of a national class and a New York class against Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and several related corporations. Mahoney alleged that she and other class members suffered an economic loss when they purchased Qualitest Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride Chewable Tablets, which are available by prescription for children who do not have access to fluoridated drinking water. Mahoney claimed that the defendants marketed the tablets as having a certain concentration of fluoride, when in fact the concentration of fluoride was much lower than the label indicated and lower than the medically- recommended dosage. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Mahoney's action in its entirety. Judge Cote denied the motion with respect to Mahoney's claims for a violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, breach of express warranty, fraud and fraudulent concealment. However, the judge dismissed Mahoney's claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. A full-text copy of Judge Cote's July 20, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/ul6i4i from Leagle.com. Shannon Mahoney, Plaintiff, represented by Ryon M. McCabe -- rmccabe@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A., Brett Elliott Von Borke -- bvb@grossmanroth.com -- Grossman Roth, P.A., David Marc Buckner -- david@bucknermiles.com -- Buckner & Miles, Seth Eric Miles, Grossman Roth, P.A. & Robert Cartwright Glass -- rglass@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A.. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Generics International (US Parent), Inc., Generics International (US), Inc., Generics Bidco I, LLC, Generics Bidco II, LLC, Generics International (US Holdco), Inc., Generics International (US Midco), Inc., Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Defendants, represented by Ingo W. Sprie, Jr. -- ingo.sprie@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, LLP, David Fauvre -- david.fauvre@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan L. Stern -- jonathan.stern@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, LLP. EVERBANK FIN'L: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Vathana" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Seeborg approved the proposed allocation plan and settlement, as well as the motion for attorney's fees and costs, in the case captioned EK VATHANA, Plaintiff, v. EVERBANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-02338-RS (N.D. Cal.). Class counsel Michael Millin will receive $250,000 from the settlement fund and reimbursement for $40,127.28 for costs. Judge Seeborg also granted lead plaintiff Ek Vathana an incentive award in the amount of $12,500. The judge further ordered that the class administrator may recover up to $21,675 for services in the case and an additional $2,000 if there is a second-round distribution. A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's July 20, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/7C3omX from Leagle.com. Ek Vathana, representing a certified class of investors, brought the action based on his purchase of two certificates of deposit (CD) denominated in Icelandic krona (ISK) from the defendants EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, and EverBank World Markets (collectively "EverBank"). Vathana claimed that EverBank's decision to close his CDs on their respective maturity dates rather than roll them over amounted to a breach of contract. EverBank maintained its action was authorized and compelled by the banking crisis that gripped Iceland in October of 2008. A class was certified of "[a]ll purchasers of EverBank WorldCurrency Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008." Vathana became the class representative and served in that capacity throughout the litigation. In March 2016, preliminary approval of the class settlement was granted, and Rust Consulting, Inc., was assigned to administer all claims. Ek Vathana, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Millen, Law Offices of Michael Millen. EverBank, EverBank Financial Corp, EverBank World Markets, Defendants, represented by Brooks Russell Brown -- bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Alexis L. Shapiro -- ashapiro@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, April Sun -- asun@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Deborah Sager Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Laura Alexandra Stoll -- lstoll@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP. FABI INC: "Garcia" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ill. Wage Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Garcia individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fabi Inc. dba Forno Rosso and Nicola Nitti, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-07401 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendants operate a restaurant called Forno Rosso. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 312-878-1302 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Dismissal of OPERS Suit Reversed --------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the third amended complaint in the case captioned OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; RICHARD F. SYRON; PATRICIA L. COOK; ANTHONY S. PISZEL; EUGENE M. MCQUADE, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-4189 (6th Cir.). Lead Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) filed a class action suit alleging securities fraud against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and four senior officers. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that OPERS failed to show loss causation. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that OPERS has sufficiently alleged causation to survive a Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's July 20, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/J4UsKH from Leagle.com. ARGUED: W.B. Markovits -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Jordan D. Hershman -- jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: W.B. Markovits, Christopher D. Stock -- cstock@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard S. Wayne -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Jordan D. Hershman, Jason D. Frank -- jason.frank@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Hugh E. McKay -- hmckay@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee FHLMC. Mark D. Hopson -- mhopson@sidley.com -- Frank R. Volpe -- fvolpe@sidley.com -- Judith C. Gallagher, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Syron. Carl S. Kravitz -- ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E. Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Cook. James K. Goldfarb -- jgoldfarb@mmlawus.com -- Michael V. Rella -- mrella@mmlawus.com -- Jonathan Bashi -- jbashi@mmlawus.com -- MURPHY & MCGONIGLE, P.C., New York, New York, Joseph C. Weinstein, William E. Donnelly -- wdonnelly@mmlawus.com -- MURPHY & MCGONIGLE, P.C., Washington, D.C., Steven A. Delchin -- steven.delchin@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee Piszel. Michael S. Doluisio -- michael.doluisio@dechert.com -- Joseph S. McFarlane -- joseph.mcfarlane@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Joseph C. Weinstein -- joe.weinstein@squirepb.com -- Stephen A. Delchin, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee McQuade. FEDEX CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 2017 in MDL ----------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the multidistrict litigation court has set a fairness hearing for January 23 and 24, 2017, in the independent contractor lawsuits. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 25 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators under a contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed. On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members are employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases. "During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The settlement will require court approval," the Company said. "During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these settlements require court approval. We recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor- related proceedings of $204 million. "The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation court, and the other 19 cases remain at the Seventh Circuit; however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed preliminary approval motions in all 20 cases on June 15 and 29, 2016. The multidistrict litigation court set a fairness hearing for January 23 and 24, 2017. FEDEX CORP: Arkansas and Florida Cases Settled ---------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The cases in Arkansas and Florida settled in the second quarter of 2016, and the Company established an accrual in each of these cases for the amount of the settlement. The settlements are subject to court approval. "On January 13, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement of the Florida case and granted final approval at a fairness hearing on July 15, 2016. "On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the Arkansas case. FEDEX CORP: Approval of Calif. Case Settlement under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that an objector to the class settlement has filed an appeal from the court approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit in California. Two independent contractor cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further proceedings. "In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases," the Company said. "In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court granted final approval of the settlement on June 15, 2016. However, on June 30, 2016, an objector to the class settlement filed an appeal of the court's approval of the settlement. We anticipate that the appeal will be argued in the spring of 2017. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting the court's approval of the settlement. FEDEX CORP: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Oregon Case -------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that two independent contractor class action cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non- multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon. The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of 2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved on April 20, 2016 and the court set a fairness hearing for October 18, 2016. FEDEX CORP: Contractor-Model Cases Pending ------------------------------------------ FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the Company is defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation. The Company said, "We do not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established." "In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters. "Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors." FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Fixing Propane Exchange Tanks Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Marshall, Robert Orr, Eric Blum, Paul Toomey, William Vincent, David McNally, Steven Luttrell, Ken Cramer, Kevin Dougherty, James Ristow, Daniel Kelleher, Richard Pedrick, Dallas May Jr., Tom Roberts, John Gilbert, Mark Stevens, Richard Paradowski, Hanz De Perio, Josh Bartholow, Joseph M. Haala, Scott Zuehlke, Wesley H. McCullough, Richard Sanchez and MaryLou Breed, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P., Amerigas Partners, L.P., Case No. 4:16-cv-00809-BP (W.D. Mo., July 21, 2016), alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The action arises out of a conspiracy to fix fill levels of exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Plaintiffs contend that the conspirators are the two leading distributers of such tanks: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P and Ferrellgas, L.P., doing business as Blue Rhino, and AmeriGas Partners, L.P., doing business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange. Ferrellgas Partners is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. Ferrellgas Partners maintains a nearly complete interest in and conducts its business activities primarily through Ferrellgas LP. Ferrellgas LP is a Delaware limited partnership also headquartered in Overland Park. Ferrellgas LP, doing business as Blue Rhino, operates a national propane distribution business, and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Ferrellgas LP's business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and distribution of propane exchange tanks under the Blue Rhino name. AmeriGas is a Delaware publicly traded master limited partnership with its principal place of business located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. AmeriGas operates a national propane distribution business through its subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, L.P. AmeriGas Partners, through AmeriGas Propane, is engaged in the marketing and sale of propane and propane supply related services, including the distribution and supply of bulk propane to residential, commercial, and agricultural customers, and the preparing, filling, distributing, marketing, and sale of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Sean R. Cooper, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com cooper@stuevesiegel.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com FIRST AMERICAN: Carrera Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Nancy Carrera, Karen Jullien, Brent Morrison, Anna Hershey and Emily Diaz filed an appeal from the District Court's February 22, 2016 order denying class action certification in the lawsuit originally titled as Nancy Carrera, et al. v. First American Home Buyers Protection Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-01585- BAS-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for Southern California, San Diego. The appellate case is styled as Nancy Carrera, et al. v. First American Home Buyers Protection Company, Case No. 16-56038, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants Nancy Carrera, Karen Jullien, Brent Morrison, Anna Hershey and Emily Diaz are represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com - and - Niall McCarthy, Esq. Anne Marie Murphy, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com amurphy@cpmlegal.com Defendant-Appellee FIRST AMERICAN HOME BUYERS PROTECTION COMPANY is represented by: Paul Kakuske, Esq. Joel David Siegel, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5155 E-mail: paul.kakuske@dentons.com joel.siegel@dentons.com - and - Charles A. Newman, Esq. DENTONS US LLP One Metropolitan Square Bldg. St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-1800 E-mail: charles.newman@dentons.com - and - Edward Patrick Swan, Jr., Esq. JONES DAY 12265 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 703-3132 Facsimile: (858) 314-1150 E-mail: pswan@jonesday.com GODADDY.COM: "Dickson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Dickson, filing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GoDaddy.com, L.L.C., a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-02414-BSB (D. Ariz., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages GoDaddy withheld in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant allegedly classified the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated GoDaddy employees holding the position of Web Builder as exempt employees ineligible for overtime wages for the period of time from approximately the middle of December 2012 through September 2015. GoDaddy is a publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web hosting company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Pruitt, Esq. Nathaniel Hill, Esq. JACKSON WHITE 40 North Center, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 464 1111 Facsimile: (480) 464 5692 E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Diamond Suit Over Real Property Assessment --------------------------------------------------------------- DIAMOND OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-47553 (D. Tex., July 19, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorney's fees) and non-monetary relief correcting the appraisal roll for Plaintiff's real property. The District allegedly placed an assessed value on the Plaintiff's property that is grossly in excess of its actual fair market value. The District provides reappraisal values for residential, commercial and business/industrial property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg J. Dalton, Esq. GREGORY J. DALTON PC PO Box 109 Katy, TX 77492 Telephone: (281) 391 1985 Facsimile: (281) 391 1987 E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Stonecrossing Suit Over Property Assessment ---------------------------------------------------------------- STONECROSSING WESTCHASE APARTMENT LLC (STONECROSSING AT WESTCHASE), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-47516 (D. Tex., July 19, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. The District allegedly appraised the real property owned by the Plaintiff at an amount of $19,0992,530 which is in excess of the appraised value required by law. The District provides reappraisal values for residential, commercial and business/industrial property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. Danielle P. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN PC One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: kdonovan@gpd.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Judge Certifies Age Discrimination Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge July 18, conditionally certified a class of TSA workers who sued the Department of Homeland Security for age discrimination. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco allowed TSA workers who sued in June 2015 to be treated as a class, though class members will have to opt in, rather than opt out, which is typical in class actions. "The court concludes that plaintiffs have offered substantial allegations that the putative class members were all harmed by a policy or decision that resulted in the closing of the TSA offices at which they worked," Tigar wrote. "These allegations sufficiently support the conclusion that the putative class members are similarly situated, and that as a result, the class members will share a number of common issues of law and fact and the case will benefit from resolution as a collective action rather than through individual cases." The class claims the TSA specifically targeted older marshals when it closed field offices in Cleveland, Tampa, San Diego, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Phoenix. The lead plaintiff, who sued under his initials K.H. due to what he claims are matters of national security, claims that at least 90 percent of air marshals in the targeted offices were older than 40. Those marshals have been reassigned. "It is the TSA's intent to force older workers from federal service and it is the TSA's desire that the older workers will in fact quit due to the closure of the field offices and the mandatory office reassignment," K.H. claims. He says the TSA wants to "purge" its workforce of older air marshals so it can "hire two young field air marshals for every older field air marshal." The move could affect approximately 300 older air marshals. In addition, he says, "The TSA is making any potential move to other offices extremely difficult, expensive, unpalatable, and problematic." K.H. says he suffered severe stress about uprooting his family from Florida and moving to California when the TSA decided to close the Tampa office, where he worked. He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to act within 180 days. The plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas Wieczorek with Morris, Polich & Purdy in Las Vegas, who did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The TSA did not respond to a request for comment. The case captioned, K.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02740- JST (N.D. Cal.) HOMEWOOD SUITES: Patrons Sue Over E. coli in Hotel Pool ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that hotel patrons claim in a class-action lawsuit in Memphis that they suffered gastrointestinal issues after swimming in the Homewood Suites Memphis - Hacks Cross pool because of E. coli and other germs in the water. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed April 26, 2013, and May 24, 2013, is moving forward on the claims that remain, and discovery is ongoing. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26, 2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2014. The case is moving forward on the claims that remain, and discovery is ongoing. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, the Company filed its opposition on October 15, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2015. On January 21, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion, which remains pending. No trial date has been set. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 77 Product Liability Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 77 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases death, as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs' attorneys, many of which are subject to certain tolling agreements. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of 55 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 22 different states. The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor and Zarick cases described below, the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of pretrial activity. Plaintiffs' attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci Surgery. The Company has received a significant number of such claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it believes are a result of these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments which included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for these claims and engaged in confidential mediation efforts. After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $6.6 million and $13.8 million, respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $4.4 million and $6.3 million, respectively, related to these product liability claims. The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of June 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, a total of $26.1 million and $24.4 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Wash. Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments ------------------------------------------------------------ Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument on an appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7, 2016. In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent's surgery on such decedent's behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal denied the motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2015. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the Washington State Supreme Court. On February 10, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order granting the plaintiff's Petition for Review. Oral argument on the appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7, 2016. The court will issue an opinion at a future time. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Reached Confidential Settlement in "Zarick" --------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that the plaintiff and the Company reached a confidential settlement of the Michelle Zarick product liability action. In December 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County (Michelle Zarick et al. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 12-237723). In Zarick, plaintiff asserted product liability claims against the Company as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during a hysterectomy, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Zarick asserted that her injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon and by the malfunction of da Vinci surgical equipment during her surgery. The lawsuit sought damages for lost earnings, past medical expenses, and pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages. On April 21, 2016, the plaintiff and the Company reached a confidential settlement, which did not have a material effect on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act -------------------------------------------------------------- STEFAN SACHSENBERG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. IRSA INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, EDUARDO SERGIO ELSZTAIN, CRESUD SOCIEDAD ANONIMA COMERCIAL, INMOBILIARIA, FINANCIERA Y AGROPECUARIA, SAUL ZANG, and MATIAS IV A.N GAIVIRONSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05743-VSB (D. Penn., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements. IRSA is the leading real estate development firm in Argentina. Cresud is an agricultural company that produces basic agricultural commodities in Brazil and other Latin American countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A, Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Ave, Ste 400, Jenkintown, PA 19046 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com - and - Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Wan" Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- Jiayi Wan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Hans E. Bishop, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01083 (W.D. Wash., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Its leading product candidate is JCAR015, which is currently in clinical trials. In May 2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 died of a cerebral edema, a form of neurotoxicity. The following June or early July, two more patients in the trial died of cerebral edemas. This caused the FDA to issue a clinical hold and forced Defendants to reveal the truth, which they finally did on July 7, 2016, after the market closed. On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.01, or 31.87%, to close at $27.81 on July 8, 2016. Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Cliff Cantor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Tel: (425) 868-7813 Fax: (425) 732-3752 Email: cliff.cantor@outlook.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: 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 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com * * * June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Juno Therapeutics CEO Hans Bishop sold $8.6 million of his stock after issuing a glowing press release about a cancer immunotherapy drug, but failed to disclose that a patient had died in clinical trials, shareholders claim in a federal class action. The Food and Drug Administration stopped the trials after two more patients died less than a month later, lead plaintiff Jiayi Wan says in the July 13 complaint. He sued the company and Bishop. The FDA stopped clinical trials of Juno's cell-based leukemia drug JCAR015 on July 8, causing shares to plunge 30 percent, but gave a green light to resume testing on July 12, after the company removed an additional chemotherapy drug to the trial regime. Wan says the company failed to disclose the first patient's death, and touted its reduced side effects to investors. However, "The company knows -- and has previously admitted -- that one of the notable side effects of JCAR015 is 'severe neurotoxicity.' In May 2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 -- dubbed the 'ROCKET' trial by Juno -- died of a cerebral edema, a form of neurotoxicity," according to the complaint. "Juno knew the patient death was important. Following the patient death, the company consulted with its Data Safety Monitoring Board ('DSMB') and the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') about an appropriate response. Yet Juno failed to report the death to investors." In early June, the company issued a press release about the drug's minimal side effects with no mention of the patient's death. Juno's stock price went up after the release and Bishop sold his shares for a huge profit, according to the complaint. "Shortly thereafter, the company's insiders cashed in. Most notably, defendant Hans E. Bishop, Juno's CEO, sold over $8.6 million worth of shares in June 2016 -- more than twice the value of his total sales for all of 2015," the complaint states. In late June or early July, two more patients died, causing the FDA to halt trials on July 8. Juno disclosed the news after the markets closed on July 7 and its stock price fell by $13, according to the complaint. Bishop also faced investor complaints of inside trading while COO of biotech company Dendreon, according to the complaint. "For defendant Bishop, this was part of a familiar pattern: Bishop was fired from his previous position as Chief Operating Officer at Dendreon Corporation on the heels of investor complaints about management's history of 'failing to disclose important info' and 's[elling] big chunks of stock just weeks before . . . bad news was announced,'" the complaint states. Wan seeks to represent investors who bought Juno stock from June 4 through July 7. He claims Juno violated securities laws by misrepresenting material facts, making false and misleading statements and causing the company's stock to be artificially inflated. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He is represented by Clifford Cantor in Sammamish. Juno spokesman Christopher Williams told GeekWire that the company is reassessing its timeline for testing the drug and would have "a clear sense of that over the next couple of weeks." JVS RESTAURANTS: "Valasquez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Henry Garcia Valasquez, individually and as class representative of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JVS Restaurants, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation and Arthur Rivaldo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81259 (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and unpaid wages, damages, pre and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. JVS Restaurants operates restaurants located at 713 US Hwy. 1, North Palm Beach, FL 33408; 279 US Hwy. 1, Tequesta, FL 33469; and, 421 US Hwy. 1, Stuart, FL 34994 where Plaintiff worked as a sushi chef. Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A. 824 W. Indiantown Road Jupiter, FL 33458 Tel: 561-691-9048 Fax: 866-259-0719 Email: Chris@CopelandPA.com Carla@CopelandPA.com K&Y PEACE: "Mendez" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Mendez, Carolina Lizbeth Gavilanes Cortaza and Marco C. Ruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. K&Y Peace Corp. (d/b/a Blacksmith Cafe) Sun Mi Chi and Kyung H. Song, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05562 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread- of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at 20 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018, under the name "Blacksmith Cafe" where Plaintiffs worked as cashier, assistant, porter and cook. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 K12 INC: "Tarapara" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ BABULAL TARAPARA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. K12 INC., RONALD J. PACKARD, NATHANIEL A. DAVIS, and JAMES J. RHYU, Case 4:16-cv-04069-PJH (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013, and October 27, 2015, inclusive, against the Defendants, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides technology-based educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools, and families. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com KAKECH LLC: Faces "Cook" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRA COOK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAKECH LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, and KAMAL BALOGUN, individually, Case 1:16-cv-02632-MHC (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION, July 20, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. KAKECH LLC is an adult entertainment club. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com KRISPY KREME: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Case ----------------------------------------------- Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached regarding the settlement of litigation relating to the previously announced definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of May 8, 2016, by and among the Company, Cotton Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), Cotton Merger Sub Inc., a North Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and JAB Holdings B.V., a Dutch Besloten Vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid (private company with limited liability) ("JAB Holdings"). Pursuant to the merger agreement and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "merger"). As previously disclosed in the company's definitive merger proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on June 24, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the "proxy statement"), six putative class action complaints challenging the merger were filed between May 26, 2016 and June 16, 2016, including five in North Carolina Superior Court and one in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Subsequent to the filing of the proxy statement, on July 8, 2016 Jonnie Lomax and Harold Lomax, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint, challenging the merger, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (together with the six previously disclosed lawsuits, the "Actions"). The complaint names the Company and its directors as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the merger. In addition, the five actions in North Carolina Superior Court were consolidated into a single litigation pending before the Honorable James L. Gale of the North Carolina Business Court (the "Court") on July 11, 2016, and plaintiffs in this consolidated litigation filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger on July 14, 2016. Plaintiffs and defendants in the Actions have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the merger, subject to approval of the Court. Defendants continue to believe that the Actions are without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement. Nothing in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in these Actions. LANCASTER, PA: Refugee Children Denied Educational Opportunities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Lancaster school district is denying refugee children from war-torn countries educational opportunities guaranteed to them by law, the American Civil Liberties Union claims in a federal lawsuit. The class action was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 19. The lead plaintiffs, "refugees who have fled war, violence, and persecution from their native countries of Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burma," are between the ages of 17 and 21 and have been relegated to the school district's "alternative" Phoenix Academy rather the McCaskey High School, which offers "full range of curricular and extracurricular programs and activities, including access to the International School," the lawsuit says. According an ACLU press release, "the problem of school districts refusing to enroll [limited-English-proficiency students] students or placing them in substandard programs appears to be increasing around the country. This is the third federal lawsuit filed on this issue in the past fifteen months, with earlier cases filed against school districts in Utica, New York , and Collier County, Florida." Both of those prior suits have recently been settled. "Having finally escaped their turbulent environment to resettle in America, these young immigrants yearn to learn English and get an education so they can make a life for themselves," the complaint says. "Many immigrant LEP students placed at Phoenix drop out because the district does not provide them with sufficient supports to overcome language barriers to enable them to learn the core curriculum, and because of unchecked, persistent bullying in a severe, authoritarian environment that is particularly ill-suited for refugees" said the ACLU of Pennsylvania in written statement. The suit alleges the plaintiffs are English language learners who do not have access to appropriate programs curriculum and are subject to bullying at Phoenix Academy, which is "an alternative high school for 'underachieving' students operated for SDOL on a contract basis by Camelot Education, a private company that is known for operating disciplinary schools." "Phoenix is run more like a disciplinary school than a traditional public high school. Students are subject to pat-down searches, prohibited from bringing belongings into or out of the school, forced to wear colored shirts that correspond with behavior and not allowed to wear watches or jewelry, expected to 'confront' peers 'exhibiting negative behavior,' and can be subjected to physical and even violent restraint, as part of the school's disciplinary policy," the complaint says. The bolster its argument, the ACLU points to the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols, which stated "There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education." "Our clients have already experienced much trauma and loss before arriving in this country. Rather than helping them make the difficult adjustment by providing educational resources required by law, the school district has denied them an education completely or forced them into an alternative school, where they are often bullied and don't learn," said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, in a statement on the organization's website. Kelly Burkholder, the Lancaster School District's coordinator of community relations, said in an email to Courthouse News that "The district believes the complaint is without merit and looks forward to providing our students with educational services that meet their individual needs consistent with the legal obligations imposed by state and federal law. "The district will continue to be on the cutting edge in developing programs that are unique, such as establishing our Refugee Welcoming Center, after school programs and special summer programs for refugee students," Burkholder continued. The ACLU filed the suit with co-council The Education Law Center, and Pepper Hamilton LLP, which is providing pro bono counsel. LAUREN A. ADESSA: Faces "Giammona" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Lauren A. Adessa. The case is captioned GIOVANNA GIAMMONA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAUREN A. ADESSA a/k/a LAUREN A. ADESSA, ESQ., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04424-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jose L. Linares. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Lender Processing Center. The case is captioned Kevin Lemieux, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lender Processing Center and Hightechlending, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16- cv-01850-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Cynthia Bashant. Lender Processing provides mortgage processing services, settlement services, and mortgage performance analytics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com LIFE TIME: "Roth" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER ROTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.; LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC.; LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; and LTF YOGA COMPANY, LLC., CASE 0:16-cv-02476 (D. Minn., July 20, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported "group fitness instructor" seeking to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Fax: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@gwblawfirm.com r.yard@gwblawfirm.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Fax: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 551-9175 Fax: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE 1422 Euclid Ave., Suite 1610 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216) 589-9280 Fax: (888) 411-0038 E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, L.P. The case is captioned Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04037 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016). LTD Financial is a debt collector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge preliminarily approved a $23.5 million securities class action in San Francisco against Magnachip Semiconductor and its directors, including attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% and a sealed, supplemental agreement. The case captioned, KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal.). MARICOPA, AZ: Phoenix Judge Trimmed Sheriff Arpaio's Authority -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Phoenix July 20, removed some of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's authority over his Internal Affairs department, finding "America's Toughest Sheriff" minimized punishments of his command staff or failed to discipline them at all for civil rights violations. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow's ruling comes two months after Snow found the Maricopa County sheriff and three of his aides in contempt of court for disobeying orders in a longstanding racial- profiling class action. Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan also face potential criminal contempt charges. In 2007, a class action filed against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) claimed deputies racially profiled Latinos during traffic stops and unlawfully detained them during crime-suppression sweeps. Judge Snow barred deputies from profiling in 2011, and in 2013 ordered Arpaio and his office to take steps to prevent racial profiling. But Arpaio's officers continued to use profiling in its sweeps and traffic stops, leading to a 21-day contempt hearing. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent the class, asked Snow in June to remove Arpaio and his command staff from overseeing the Internal Affairs division to prevent them from concealing wrongdoing. Arpaio and Sheridan "have openly defied the court's authority in front of subordinates, repeatedly violated the court's discovery orders, deliberately misled the court appointed monitor, and willfully subverted MCSO's internal affairs system to evade being held responsible for their misconduct," the ACLU wrote in a memo. Snow agreed with the ACLU July 20, finding that Arpaio and his aides have "manipulated the Internal Affairs process at the MCSO to ensure that many employees -- including Chief Deputy Sheridan -- were disciplined in a relatively lenient manner or not at all for violating the rights of the plaintiff class." To combat these failures, Snow ordered that an independent Internal Affairs investigator and an independent disciplinary authority "make and review disciplinary decisions for all employees pertaining to the misconduct." Snow's order also requires the sheriff's office to review all of its policies and produce new or revised procedures for performing misconduct investigations. Among the changes, "No employee who was involved in an incident shall be involved in or review a misconduct investigation arising out of the incident," Snow wrote. Any employee involved in a business or personal relationship with a witness in a misconduct investigation may not participate in the investigation, the order states. Within three months of completing these revised procedures, the sheriff's office must provide members of its Internal Affairs division with 40 hours of training on how to conduct investigations. The sheriff also must train all deputies about the new policies, Snow ordered. A hearing on July 22, will address potential criminal contempt charges Snow might refer against Arpaio or Sheridan. Those charges could include fines and jail time. A sheriff's office representative could not be reached for comment before press time. Arpaio, 84, is attending the Republican National Convention in Cleveland as a delegate from Arizona. The case captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al. Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al. Defendants (D. Ariz.). MARICOPA, AZ: Defying Court Orders Not "Criminal," Arpaio Argues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that attorneys for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his top aide argued in court on July 22, afternoon that their clients' repeated disregard of a federal judge's orders did not amount to criminal contempt. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan in civil contempt in May, ruling the two disobeyed Snow's orders in a 2007 class action to stop racially profiling Latinos, withheld documents from the court and misstated facts while under oath. They both now face referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible criminal charges of contempt of court, perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to a court- appointed monitor. The plaintiff class raised the civil contempt allegations against Arpaio and Sheridan, claiming the two men and other command staff in the sheriff's office failed to deliver data to the court and train deputies on how to make constitutional traffic stops, as required by a 2013 order. Mel McDonald, an attorney for Arpaio, told the court July 22, that Snow should take into consideration the sheriff's lengthy "exemplary" law enforcement career and his age, but should also focus on how the criminal referral could affect progress of complying with the court's orders at the sheriff's office. "Referring the criminal contempt would almost undermine the directives you've given," McDonald said. "It is self-defeating." Snow said he's considered whether the remedies he's ordered will change the actions of Arpaio and Sheridan. In an order July 20, Snow removed some of Arpaio's authority over his internal affairs department, and laid out reforms the sheriff's office must make when handling misconduct investigations. "Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio lied in the contempt hearing," Snow said. "They lied to my face." Snow, who has overseen most of the nearly decade-old case, indicated the two men would not receive any special treatment due to their status within the sheriff's office. "I am through putting up with that kind of stuff and they are going to be as responsible for what they do as any other citizen in Maricopa County," Snow said. McDonald said mistakes were made by Arpaio in implementing Snow's previous orders, but improvements have been made in working with the court-appointed monitor and among supervisors in the agency. "You have the best of both worlds by not making the referral," McDonald said. "Give them the opportunity to prove it to you." Lee Stein, an attorney for Sheridan, argued that reforms recently imposed by Snow make a criminal referral unnecessary. "The court has, as it stands, imposed civil remedies that are going to result in a number of investigations into Chief Sheridan," Stein told the court. If any investigation produces evidence that Sheridan acted against the court's order, it may result in his termination from the sheriff's office. "These are severe and profound consequences for Chief Sheridan and his future," Stein said. The ACLU, which represents the plaintiff class, urged Snow in June to refer Arpaio and Sheridan to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Arpaio and Sheridan "have openly defied the court's authority in front of subordinates, repeatedly violated the court's discovery orders, deliberately misled the court appointed monitor, and willfully subverted MCSO's internal affairs system to evade being held responsible for their misconduct," the memo argued. "And even after they were called to account in a civil contempt proceeding, Arpaio and Sheridan continued to flout the rule of law by lying on the witness stand." Michele Iafrate, a former attorney for Arpaio, and Capt. Steve Bailey also face criminal referrals. The two are alleged to have delayed producing a cache of identifications to the court. It is unclear when Snow will rule on the referrals. Snow is also expected to levy fines against Arpaio and Sheridan. MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Settlement Deal in "Knuckles" Has Final Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Linda V. Parker granted final approval of the class-wide settlement in the case captioned FALISCIA C. KNUCKLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARY JANE ELLIOTT, PC, Defendant, Civil Case No. 15-10175 (E.D. Mich.). Faliscia Knuckles filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, alleging that a debt collection notice sent by the defendant, Mary Jane M. Elliott P.C., violates the Fair Debt Collection Practice and Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act. The settlement, as reached by the parties, requires the defendant to pay $7,910.00 to the class administrator within 10 days of final approval of the settlement. The claims administrator then will distribute $14.00 to each class member who timely returns a valid Proof of Claim form. Any portion of the settlement fund that is unclaimed by class members after 90 days shall result in a cy pres distribution to the National Consumer Law Center. Within 10 days of final approval of the settlement, the defendant shall send Knuckles' counsel, Brian Parker, a check made payable to Knuckles for $2,500.00, representing payment of statutory damages and a class incentive award. Within the same time frame, the defendant is required to send a check to Brian Parker, as class counsel, representing payment of the approved attorneys' fees and cost. A full-text copy of Judge Parker's July 20, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/N5PBch from Leagle.com. Faliscia C Knuckles, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker -- brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- Brian P. Parker Assoc.. Mary Jane M. Eilliott, PC, Defendant, represented by Jason M. Renner -- jason.renner@ceflawyers.com -- Collins Einhorn Farrell P.C. & Sarah E. Blalock -- sarah.blalock@ceflawyers.com -- Collins Einhorn Farrell, P.C.. MARY KAY: D.N.J. Ruling in "Collins" Class Suit under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Ina M. Collins filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ina Collins v. Mary Kay Inc., Case No. 2-15- cv-07129, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Collins, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, commenced the lawsuit on September 28, 2015, alleging violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. She alleged that the Case arises from the Defendant's rules for Beauty Consultants whereby it would require them to purchase designated minimum amounts of Mary Kay products directly from the Company in order to maintain their designation as Beauty Consultants. The appellate case is captioned as Ina Collins v. Mary Kay Inc., Case No. 16-3178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-1266 Facsimile: (609) 799-1267 E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Christine A. Amalfe, Esq. Richard S. Zackin, Esq. GIBBONS P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4829 Facsimile: (973) 639-6230 E-mail: camalfe@gibbonslaw.com rzackin@gibbonslaw.com MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JARVIS THOMAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C., SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. D/B/A SWECO, and TONY D. McCLINTON, Case 7:16-cv-00279 (W.D. Tex., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C. is based in Midland, Texas and is a provider of equipment and services to nationwide oil and gas industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com MCDONALD CORP: Not Liable for Wage Theft Claims, Judge Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, July 21, told attorneys for a class of fast-food workers he does not believe McDonald's can be held liable for claims of wage theft. Led by cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate the class sued McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014, saying they were denied meal and rest breaks and were not paid for all the hours they worked because McDonald's computer system killed overtime from their time cards. But U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the class failed to show that McDonalds exercises enough control over the day-to-day operation of its franchisees to be considered their employer. Seeborg said at the July 21 hearing that he was inclined to grant McDonald's' motion for summary judgment on vicarious liability. "McDonald's is simply not a joint employer. I think the undisputed facts are pretty clear. The basic working condition arrangements are with Haynes and not McDonald's," Seeborg said. The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and San Leandro since 2010. Seeborg noted that Haynes controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wages and general working conditions, much like the franchisees in Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., another wage and hour class action in the Northern District of California. In Ochoa, U.S. District Judge James Donato found that McDonald's did not directly employ the plaintiffs, as all staffing decisions were made by franchise owner Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership. "The Ochoa case, while not binding on me, is quite persuasive," Seeborg said. Class attorney Barbara Chisholm disagreed. "The court got it wrong in Ochoa," she told Seeborg. Chisholm said McDonald's is indeed a joint employer, and that it exercised, at the very least, indirect control over the Haynes restaurants by setting requirements for staffing and scheduling. A business consultant visited the restaurants every so often, and in their depositions, Chisholm said, both Salazar and Zarate said they saw the consultant correct employees and shift managers on how to do their jobs. They also allegedly told Haynes not to let employees take breaks during busy times. Seeborg seemed unpersuaded. As to hiring, firing, supervision and discipline of employees -- the factors that create a direct employer relationship -- Seeborg said: "At the end of the day, the Haynes get to make the choice." But Chisholm said there are unresolved questions about whom the plaintiffs believed they were working for. She said that when Salazar was asked about Haynes, she was told that Haynes is part of McDonald's. "The confusion as to who really is their employer and whether Haynes is part of McDonald's is highly reasonable," Chisholm said. "These are low-wage workers we're talking about." McDonald's attorney Lawrence DiNardo said that the Haynes family viewed McDonald's training programs and operating procedures as suggestions, not requirements. DiNardo said McDonalds did not have the kind of power to be considered a joint employer with Haynes. "The notion of indirect control here is that by some device you still have the power to hire fire, set wages, etc. It's not just that you have an influence on those matters," he said. "That's not enough to make you an employer under the Labor Code." Seeborg did not indicate when he would rule. MCDONALD'S CORP: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ochoa" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants McDonald's Corp., McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, and McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Stephanie Ochoa, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02098-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12, 2016, the Hon. James Donato granted in part and denied in part a motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs Stephanie Ochoa, Ernestina Sandoval, Yadira Rodriguez, and Jasmine Hedgepeth. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all current and former employees at the Smiths' restaurants, who worked as crew, crew trainers, or maintenance workers and were paid on an hourly basis from four years before the complaint to final judgment or settlement. The Plaintiffs move for certification of that single Class to pursue claims for: (1) miscalculated wages; (2) overtime; (3) meals and rest breaks; (4) maintenance of uniforms; (5) wage statements; and (6) related derivative claims. Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies the proposed Class for plaintiffs' miscalculated wages claims, overtime claims and maintenance-of-uniform claims, and any claims that are derivative of those claims. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A0V1eNjk The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Ochoa, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 16-80096, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Respondents Stephanie Ochoa, Ernestina Sandoval, Yadira Rodriguez and Jasmine Hedgepeth are represented by: Barbara Jane Chisholm Matthew John Murray, Esq. P. Casey Pitts, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: bchisholm@althshulerberzon.com mmurray@altshulerberzon.com ppitts@atlahulerberzon.com mrubin@altshulerberzon.com - and - Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com Defendants-Petitioners McDonald's Corp., McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, and McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., are represented by: Gregory William Knopp, I, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-6436 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com - and - Pratik A. Shah, Esq. James Edward Tysse, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-4210 Facsimile: (202) 887-4288 E-mail: pshah@akingump.com jtysse@akingump.com MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Vacated Certification of Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust said in its Form 10 D Asset- Backed Issuer Distribution Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has found that class plaintiffs were inadequately represented and as a result vacated the district court's certification of the settlement class consisting of the merchants that accepted or will accept Visa and/or MasterCard from November 28, 2012 onwards, reversed approval of the settlement, and remanded the action for further proceedings. Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including Citibank, N.A. (collectively Citigroup), together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This proceeding is captioned In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1720. On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions, including Citigroup, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class settlement. The class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among other things, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants to surcharge some payment card transactions subject to certain limitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers at the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants. Subsequently, all defendants and certain of the plaintiffs who had entered into the MOU executed a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the MOU. On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only. The court held a hearing on September 12, 2013 to consider whether the class settlements should be finally approved. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order granting final approval to the class settlement, and on January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment. On July 28, 2015, various objectors to the class settlement filed motions in the U.S. District Court to vacate the court's prior approval of the class settlement, alleging improprieties by two of the lawyers involved in the Interchange MDL. Also, a number of objectors filed an appeal of the final approval order with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the class plaintiffs were inadequately represented and as a result vacated the district court's certification of the settlement class consisting of the merchants that accepted or will accept Visa and/or MasterCard from November 28, 2012 onwards, reversed approval of the settlement, and remanded the action for further proceedings. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.), and at: https://www.paymentcardsettlement.com/en MDL 2002: Summary Judgment BidS Pending in Egg Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016, in the Egg Antitrust Litigation but has not ruled on these motions. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported, in November 2014, the Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial. In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20. The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their renewed motion for injunctive class certification. The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages classes. On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. MDL 2562: Nadola Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Objector Caroline Nadola filed an appeal from the Final Order and Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562- RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The appellate case is captioned Alexia Keil, et al. v. Caroline Nadola, Case No. 16-3167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the Settlement: All residents of the United States of America who, from May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the Settlement Agreement]. Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32 million into the Settlement Fund. The Court also approved an incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500. Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to, the $32 million common fund. The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the Nestle Purina PetCare Company. Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are represented by: Timothy M. Cronin, Esq. Ryan A. Keane, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by: Sean K. Cronin, Esq. DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C. 201 S. Illinois Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 212-6500 Facsimile: (618) 212-6501 E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. WECHSLER & HARWOOD 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 401 Center Street, Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 820-4247 E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com - and - Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq. COREA FIRM 2028 Sarrington Street Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (214) 953-3900 E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. David L. Steelman, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by: Joshua Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ LAW FIRM 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com - and - David B. Helms, Esq. Sarah A. Milunski, Esq. Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-7600 E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com rwalsh@lewisrice.com - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 16th Floor 100 W. 93rd Street New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: michael@reesellp.com - and - Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (561) 688-0630 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are represented by: Scott Bursor, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7129 E-mail: scott@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Don Manley Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Eighth Floor Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000 Telephone: (314) 732-0728 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 320 E. 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com avozzolo@faruqilaw.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are represented by: Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. KLINGMAN LAW, LLC 196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 256-6120 E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by: Brian Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 19 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - James Richard Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by: Sara Avila, Esq. Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Allison Rachel Willett, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: savila@majfw.com gwade@majfw.com allison@willettlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by: Matthew Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM 8816 Manchester Road Brentwood, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by: Daniel Frech, Esq. Stuart Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com - and - Andrea Gold, Esq. Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com jtycko@tzlegal.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by: Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq. WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC P.O. Box 1150 3056 Railroad Avenue Bamberg, SC 29003 Telephone: (803) 245-7799 - and - Robert V. Phillips, Esq. MCGOWAN & HOOD 1539 Healthcare Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 Telephone: (803) 327-7800 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by: Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR. 1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B Mandeville, LA 70471 Telephone: (985) 246-3034 - and - Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC 600 North Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 822-2136 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com - and - Noah Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com MDL 2562: Sweeney Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Objector Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from the Final Order and Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562- RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The appellate case is entitled Alexia Keil, et al. v. Pamela Sweeney, Case No. 16-3168, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the Settlement: All residents of the United States of America who, from May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the Settlement Agreement]. Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32 million into the Settlement Fund. The Court also approved an incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500. Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to, the $32 million common fund. The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the Nestle Purina PetCare Company. Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are represented by: Timothy M. Cronin, Esq. Ryan A. Keane, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by: Sean K. Cronin, Esq. DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C. 201 S. Illinois Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 212-6500 Facsimile: (618) 212-6501 E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. WECHSLER & HARWOOD 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 401 Center Street, Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 820-4247 E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com - and - Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq. COREA FIRM 2028 Sarrington Street Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (214) 953-3900 E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. David L. Steelman, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by: Joshua Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ LAW FIRM 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com - and - David B. Helms, Esq. Sarah A. Milunski, Esq. Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-7600 E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com rwalsh@lewisrice.com - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 16th Floor 100 W. 93rd Street New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: michael@reesellp.com - and - Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (561) 688-0630 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are represented by: Scott Bursor, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7129 E-mail: scott@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Don Manley Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Eighth Floor Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000 Telephone: (314) 732-0728 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 320 E. 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com - and - Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are represented by: Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. KLINGMAN LAW, LLC 196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 256-6120 E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by: Brian Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 19 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - James Richard Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by: Sara Avila, Esq. Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Allison Rachel Willett, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: savila@majfw.com gwade@majfw.com allison@willettlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by: Matthew Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM 8816 Manchester Road Brentwood, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by: Daniel Frech, Esq. Stuart Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com - and - Andrea Gold, Esq. Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com jtycko@tzlegal.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by: Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq. WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC P.O. Box 1150 3056 Railroad Avenue Bamberg, SC 29003 Telephone: (803) 245-7799 - and - Robert V. Phillips, Esq. MCGOWAN & HOOD 1539 Healthcare Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 Telephone: (803) 327-7800 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by: Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR. 1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B Mandeville, LA 70471 Telephone: (985) 246-3034 - and - Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC 600 North Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 822-2136 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com - and - Noah Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com MDL 2562: Sibley Appeals Order Approving $32MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Objector Gary S. Sibley filed an appeal from the Final Order and Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562- RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The appellate case is titled Alexia Keil, et al. v. Gary Sibley, Case No. 16-3169, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the Settlement: All residents of the United States of America who, from May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the Settlement Agreement]. Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32 million into the Settlement Fund. The Court also approved an incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500. Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to, the $32 million common fund. The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the Nestle Purina PetCare Company. Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are represented by: Timothy M. Cronin, Esq. Ryan A. Keane, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by: Sean K. Cronin, Esq. DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C. 201 S. Illinois Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 212-6500 Facsimile: (618) 212-6501 E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. WECHSLER & HARWOOD 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 401 Center Street, Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 820-4247 E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com - and - Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq. COREA FIRM 2028 Sarrington Street Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (214) 953-3900 E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by: Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq. David L. Steelman, Esq. STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 Pine Street P.O. Box 1257 Rolla, MO 65402 Telephone: (573) 341-8336 Facsimile: (573) 341-8548 E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com - and - David Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by: Joshua Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ LAW FIRM 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com - and - David B. Helms, Esq. Sarah A. Milunski, Esq. Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-7600 E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com rwalsh@lewisrice.com - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 16th Floor 100 W. 93rd Street New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: michael@reesellp.com - and - Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (561) 688-0630 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are represented by: Scott Bursor, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7129 E-mail: scott@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com Plaintiff-Appellee Brian Andacky is represented by: John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Melissa Baggett is represented by: Don Manley Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Eighth Floor Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000 Telephone: (314) 732-0728 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 320 E. 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com avozzolo@faruqilaw.com - and - Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are represented by: Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. KLINGMAN LAW, LLC 196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 256-6120 E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by: Brian Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 19 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - James Richard Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by: Sara Avila, Esq. Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Allison Rachel Willett, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: savila@majfw.com gwade@majfw.com allison@willettlaw.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by: Matthew Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM 8816 Manchester Road Brentwood, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by: Daniel Frech, Esq. Stuart Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com - and - Andrea Gold, Esq. Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com jtycko@tzlegal.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by: Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq. WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC P.O. Box 1150 3056 Railroad Avenue Bamberg, SC 29003 Telephone: (803) 245-7799 - and - Robert V. Phillips, Esq. MCGOWAN & HOOD 1539 Healthcare Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 Telephone: (803) 327-7800 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by: Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR. 1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B Mandeville, LA 70471 Telephone: (985) 246-3034 - and - Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC 600 North Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 822-2136 - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com - and - Noah Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com - and - John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Proposed Range Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEMORIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., TONY R. WEBER, JAY C. GRAHAM, SCOTT A. GIESELMAN, KENNETH A. HERSH, ROBERT A. INNAMORATI, CAROL L. O'NEILL, PAT WOOD III, RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, and MEDINA MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-02183 (S.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Memorial against Memorial and its Board of Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to let the Company be acquired by Range through its wholly owned subsidiary by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. On May 16, 2016, Memorial and Range announced in a joint press release that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 15, 2016. According to the Merger Agreement, Range would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Memorial common shares in an all-stock transaction for 0.375 of a Range common share per Memorial common share for a value of $15.75 per share based on the May 13, 2016 Range closing price of $42.01. Memorial is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Houston, Texas. The Company is an independent natural gas and oil company focused on the exploitation, development, and acquisition of natural gas, NGL, and oil properties in North Louisiana. The Individual Defendants are the directors and officers of the Company. Range is a Delaware Corporation with its principal executive offices located in Fort Worth, Texas. Range is an independent natural gas, NGLs and oil company, engaged in the exploration, development and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Range. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-7720 - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: srowley@zlk.com MERCHANT ENTERPRISES: Col. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ-CHAVEZ, MIGUEL A. ROSAS-ROSAS, PANTALEON RUEDA-ONTIVEROS, ENRIQUE MONGE, SANTOS NOGAL, and VICTOR M. ESPINOZA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCHANT ENTERPRISES, INC., MERCHANT DEMOLITION, LLC; and WILLIAM E. TIBBETS, Case 1:16-cv-01854 (D. Col., July 20, 2016), was filed purportedly on behalf of currently or formerly employed hourly demolition workers in Defendants' Lakewood, CO-based construction business, seeking to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. BUSECHER, KELMAN PERERA & TURNER, P.C. 600 Grant Street - Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303)-333-7751 Fax: (303)-333-7758 E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com - and - Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH P.C. 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202-0008 Phone: (303)595-0008 Fax: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com MILDRED DELI: NY Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS TECUN, MANUEL CIPRIANO MEJIA, CONCEPCION SANCHEZ ALONSO, CRISTINA GATICA LUNA, LAURO GARZON VALENCIA FLORES, and MIRIAM PINOS BUENDIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MILDRED DELI GROCERY INC. (d/b/a MILDRED DELI & GROCERY), COLOMBIA NUNEZ and AURELIA MEDINA, Case 1:16-cv-05796 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Deli/grocery located at 231 E. 116th Street, New York, New York 10029 under the name Mildred Deli & Grocery. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 MISTRAS GROUP: Settled Viceral and Kruger Action ------------------------------------------------ Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, that the Company on July 19, 2016, entered into a joint stipulation for settlement and release to settle the class action case pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Viceral and Kruger v. Mistras Group, Inc. The case involves claims related to California and Federal wage and hour and other labor laws. The Company agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the allegations and will be responsible for the employer portion of payroll taxes on the amount of the settlement allocated to wages. The settlement is subject to court approval. The settlement will cover claims dating back to April 2011 in some cases, through the date the settlement receives final approval. MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bankr. Court Can't Rule on Equitable Mootness ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached a decision in an appeal in the ignition switch case. As disclosed in the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 of Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust (the "GUC Trust"), certain plaintiffs in actions relating to the recall of vehicles by the General Motors Company (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, "New GM") for ignition switch and other defects appealed certain threshold decisions made by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in In re Motors Liquidation Co., Nos. 15-2844, 15-2847, 15-2848 (the "Appeal"). On July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision on the Appeal. Background In July 2009, New GM purchased assets (the "Sale") from Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General Motors Corp.) ("Old GM") pursuant to a Bankruptcy Court order relying on Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Sale Order") that barred certain product liability and property damage claims against New GM, as the successor corporation, where such claims arose before July 9, 2009, the closing date of the Sale. Following New GM's recall of vehicles for ignition switch and other defects throughout 2014, hundreds of lawsuits were filed. Plaintiffs in those suits included those who had suffered pre- closing injuries allegedly arising from the ignition switch defect (the "Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs") and plaintiffs who sought damages for alleged economic losses arising from the ignition switch defect in Old GM vehicles (the "Ignition Switch Plaintiffs"). On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion relating to the impact of the Sale Order on plaintiffs' lawsuits. The Bankruptcy Court allowed the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs to pursue claims against New GM related to its own, post-Sale conduct, but the Bankruptcy Court enforced the Sale Order to enjoin all other claims against New GM, and applied the doctrine of "equitable mootness" to bar relief for would-be claims against the GUC Trust. Second Circuit Decision On July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision in the Appeal (the "Decision"). In its Decision, the Second Circuit held, in pertinent part, that the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs and Ignition Switch Plaintiffs were entitled to, but did not receive, direct-mail notice of the Sale because Old GM "knew or reasonably should have known about the ignition switch defect prior to bankruptcy." The Second Circuit also noted that it could not say with fair assurance that the outcome of the Sale would have been the same had Old GM given plaintiffs adequate notice of the ignition switch defect and the Sale, and these plaintiffs voiced their objections to those provisions of the Sale Order barring their claims against New GM. Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that enforcing the Sale Order against the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs and the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs would violate their procedural due process rights in these circumstances, and therefore, they cannot be bound by the terms of the Sale Order. As a result, the court held that those plaintiffs are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM. The Second Circuit further held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue its decision as to equitable mootness for claims against the GUC Trust because no plaintiff has asserted a claim against the GUC Trust. Therefore, the court held, any opinion as to equitable mootness was purely advisory. The Second Circuit did not, however, express any opinion as to the merits of whether such claims would be equitably moot if brought against the GUC Trust. In addition, the Second Circuit held that the Sale Order cannot enjoin independent claims relating to New GM's post-Sale conduct. It also held that claims by purchasers who bought used GM vehicles post-Sale are not bound by the Sale Order and therefore are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM for their losses, because those claimants lacked a pre-Sale connection to Old GM at the time Old GM filed its bankruptcy petition. The Second Circuit remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for it to conduct further proceedings as to certain plaintiffs whose damages may not have resulted from defective ignitions switches. A copy of the Decision is available at https://goo.gl/ymNWGs NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Song" Denied ------------------------------------------------- Judge Stewart Dalzell denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned SUE SONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC., Civil Action No. 16-006 (E.D. Pa.). Sue Song, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. for its allegedly unlawful failure to terminate her private mortgage insurance in accordance with her mortgage agreement. Judge Dalzell denied Nationstar's motion to dismiss because the Homeowners Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. section 4901 et seq., does not preempt Song's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, and Song's first amended complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a facially plausible claim to relief against Nationstar. A full-text copy of Judge Dalzell's July 20, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/C7RUCg from Leagle.com. SUE SONG, Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK PC.. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, represented by DARREN WILLIAM DWYER -- darren.dwyer@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. NEW MEXICO: Human Services Dept. Faces Contempt Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Albuquerque recommended that New Mexico's Human Services Department be held in contempt for failing to abide by court-ordered changes to its troubled food and medical assistance programs. New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation: one in three New Mexicans receive some form of public assistance. The state's Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, formerly called food stamps, have been accused of violating federal regulations for decades. A class-action lawsuit filed in 1988 accused the state's Human Services Department of failing to notify applicants about the emergency SNAP program, of not processing applications within the federally mandated time period, and of denying valid applications. That lawsuit has not yet been resolved 28 years later, despite a negotiated resolution and an agreement to "make good faith efforts to resolve any differences that may arise in the prospective implementation of the decree," U.S. Magistrate Judge Carmen Garza wrote in her July 15 recommendation that the Human Services Department be held in contempt of court. Garza said the state's failure to comply with court orders despite multiple deadline extensions was grounds not only for contempt charges but necessitated the appointment of a special master to oversee the Human Services Department. Though Garza noted that Human Services Secretary Brett Earnest has acknowledged that his department "must make serious and fundamental changes in order for the SNAP and Medicaid programs in New Mexico to come into compliance with federal law and the court orders," she added: "Defendant's realization has come entirely too late." The continuing failures have a profound effect on New Mexicans, Garza wrote, for "when an eligible SNAP or Medicaid applicant is denied or delayed in receiving benefits, that individual loses benefits he or she may rely on to eat, feed his or her children, or to receive essential medical coverage." In response to the judicial rebuke, Human Services spokesman Kyler Nerison told the Albuquerque Journal: "While we don't agree with everything in the judge's decision, it does include our proposal that would bring in an outside, impartial monitor to review compliance and help resolve any of these long-standing issues -- some three decades old -- while at the same time allowing us to continue providing resources to New Mexicans who need them most." Garza ordered that a special master be in place no later than Jan. 1, 2018, to "objectively review and determine HSD's compliance with the consent decree, other court orders, and federal law concerning the process for obtaining and maintaining Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ('SNAP') and Medicaid benefits." The case captioned, DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRENT EARNEST, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant., No. 88-0385 KG/CG (D.N.M.). NUTIVA: Faces "Elnathan" Suit Seeking to Enforce Cal. Wage Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- HADASS ELNATHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys general, v. NUTIVA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No: BC 627600 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 20, 2016), seeks to enforce and uphold California's wage and hour laws. Nutiva -- http://nutiva.com/-- Nutiva is a brand of all-organic hemp foods, coconut oil, red palm oil and chia seeds. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 555 East Occan Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 432-8933 Fax: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchcsbaum.com O'CHARLEY'S LLC: "Otis" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Otis, Megan Hurley Otis, Stacy Rahn, Kaitlyn Jennings, Staci Walker, Kayla Riggins, Tanya Wilson, Alexa Lucas And Clint Beeler, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. O'Charley's LLC, A Tennessee Limited Liability Company, O'Charley's Management Company, LLC, A Tennessee Limited Liability Company, O'Charley's Service Company, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company and American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and Hazem Ouf, an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02219 (C.D. Ill., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. O'Charley's operates restaurants throughout Illinois and other states across the Midwestern and Southeastern United States where Plaintiffs worked as server, bartenders and hosts. Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "We and our former Chief Executive Officer, Charles Dunleavy, are defendants in the Securities Class Action. On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into the Stipulation in which they agreed to a settlement of the Securities Class Action, subject to Court approval after notice to class members. The Stipulation provides, among other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of us of $3,000,000 in cash, of which we will pay $500,000 and our insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares of its Common Stock to the class members. In connection with the proposed settlement, the parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases." "On June 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. The amounts agreed in the Stipulation agreement, including the amount to be contributed by our insurance carrier, have been reflected in our financial statements as of April 30, 2016. The Stipulation is subject to approval by the Court following notice to all class members. We cannot assure you that the Court will approve the Stipulation or that this pending litigation will be settled on such terms or at all." OIL STATES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Seeking Payment of OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY MCDONALD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-01879 (D. Colorado., July 21, 2016), accuses the Company of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act by failing to: (1) compensate employees, including the Plaintiff, at "time and one-half" their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked; and (2) ensure that employees received paid rest breaks during their shifts. Oil States is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its corporate offices located in Houston, Texas. Oil States provides technical services and associated rental equipment to the energy sector in various states. The Plaintiff worked for Oil States at locations in Colorado. Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, the Plaintiff preliminarily defines this Class: All current or former non-exempt Colorado Oil States employees: 1) who were not compensated properly for all overtime hours worked; and/or 2) who were not provided paid rest breaks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued its order affirming the District Court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice, securities related class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court") against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the related actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647- PSG (FMOx))." "After the District Court issued two separate orders granting the Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the District Court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with respect to the District Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Oral argument for lead plaintiff's appeal was conducted on May 4, 2016, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 8, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its order affirming the District Court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice." PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Case ---------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors. On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that our directors and executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit." "The defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 19, 2016. We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." PNC CAPITAL: Faces "Martin" Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against PNC Capital Investment Advisors. The case is styled Robert Martin, and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PNC Capital Investment Advisors, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01828-DCN (N.D. Ohio, July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Donald C. Nugent. PNC Capital is a privately owned investment manager. The firm provides its services to high net worth individuals and investment companies. The Plaintiff appears pro se. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA). The case is captioned Kevin C. Beyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-04026-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Arthur D. Spatt. PRA is an American debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 706 5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Dismissal of 3226701 Canada Case Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that the Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business outlook and product development between April 7, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On June 28, 2016, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Hargrave" Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against R.A. Rogers, Inc. The case is captioned Kenesha Yo Hargrave, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. R.A. Rogers, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00928-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., July 20, 2016). The assigned District Judge is Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema. R.A. Rogers is a full service collection agency, specializing in credit unions, banks, medical, property management and commercial collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq. THOMAS R. BREEDEN PC 10326 Lomond Drive Manassas, VA 20109 Telephone: (703) 361 9277 Facsimile: (703) 257 2259 E-mail: trb@tbreedenlaw.com ROYAL THAI: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Royal Thai Plus, LLC. The case is captioned Nael Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Royal Thai Plus, LLC doing business as Hua Lamphong; Punyachalee Phakamas; Hua Lumphong; and Yanakarn Laksanaphrom, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04028 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016). Royal Thai is a hyper-local, small business, located in and/or serving the Brooklyn, New York area. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SAMPSON TREE: Faces "Edenfield" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA L. EDENFIELD, v. SAMPSON TREE SERVICE CO., a Florida Corporation, RICHARD A. SAMPSON, individually, Case 2:16-cv-14306- RLR (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages in the form of alleged unpaid overtime compensation and redress for the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated persons by the Fair Labor Standards Act. TREE SERVICE CO. is a tree service business specializing in removal and disposal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq. Lisa M. Kohring, Esq. SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 659-3300 Fax: (561) 693-4540 E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com mail@schwarzberglaw.com lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com mail@schwarzberglaw.com SAN LEANDRO: Faces "Cooper" Suit in Calif. Over Sale Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Cooper individually; and, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAN LEANDRO CAR STOP LLC, dba SAN LEANDRO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM; DOE 1, an individual; DOES 2-6, individuals; and, Santander Consumer USA Inc., dba Chrysler Capital; and, DOES 1-500, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16828652 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 18, 2016), seeks injunctive relief and declaratory relief as a result of Defendants' violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not get a Buyer's Guide. The Plaintiff allegedly did not get a fully executed copy of the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC). The RISC represents the vehicle as "new" even though it is "used". The RISC represents the mileage at 6 even though the vehicle had over 40 miles on it at the time of sale. San Leandro is a new and used car dealer located in San Leandro, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis A. Liberty, Esq. LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, a PLC 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A Foster City, CA 94404 Telephone: (650) 341 0300 Facsimile: (650) 403 1783 E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Court Dismissed Merger Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited) said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a merger class action lawsuit but retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the additional Proxy disclosures. On August 25, 2015, Schlumberger Holdings Corporation ("Schlumberger US"), Rain Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"), Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited) ("Schlumberger") and Cameron International Corp. ("Cameron") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. After the announcement of the merger, Cameron, Cameron's directors, Schlumberger US, Merger Sub and Schlumberger were named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger that were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Cameron International Corp. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 77506, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs generally alleged that Cameron's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cameron's stockholders and that Cameron, Schlumberger US, Merger Sub and Schlumberger aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed on additional disclosures that Cameron included in its definitive proxy on Schedule 14A filed on November 17, 2015 (the "Proxy"). The plaintiffs thereafter withdrew their pending motions to expedite proceedings and to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger. The merger closed on April 1, 2016, and Cameron became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger. On April 15, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the lawsuit but retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the additional Proxy disclosures. The parties subsequently agreed to a payment made directly by Schlumberger to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $110,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the action. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its reasonableness. SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Law -------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN ALVAREZ a/k/a EDUARDO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS LLC, SRG1 LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG2 LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG 570 LEX LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG NYP LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, ANDREW SCHNIPPER and JONATHAN SCHNIPPER, Case 1:16-cv-05779 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover redress under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate four restaurants under the common trade name "Schnipper's Quality Kitchen." The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits ------------------------------------------------------------ TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS LP, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08522 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Sherman Acquisitions is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail SLOAN VALVE: Flushing System Makes Toilets Explode, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Sloan Valve Co. recalled Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure-Assist Flushing System can make toilets explode, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. SMARTHEAT INC: Settled All Claims in US Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit. On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang , SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as defendants. The second amended complaint alleges two counts against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification. On September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a response on October 20, 2014. By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy and predominance. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the injury to all class members could not be established by common proof. In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were typical of other class members. The Court also expressed doubts as to how plaintiffs would establish damages. The Court's denial of class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous, and a far more convincing submission . . .". The pleadings and court orders are publicly available. The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or director of Smartheat or any of the defendants, and the Company and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing. The default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return, the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all of the individual defendants with prejudice. As a result of the settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants. The Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and strengthening its business. SNAP-ON CREDIT: Face "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Snap-On Credit, LLC. The case is captioned Robert Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Snap-On Credit, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-50244 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Philip G. Reinhard. Snap-on Credit provides professional tools and diagnostic equipment financing solutions to Snap-on customers worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Scott Hyslip, Esq. HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC, LPA 1100 W. Cermak Road, Suite B410 Chicago, IL 60608 Telephone: (312) 380-6110 E-mail: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com SOCA FUNDING: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits --------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOCA FUNDING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08496 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Soca Funding is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail SONY: To Pay $125MM to Settle Indirect Buyers' Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Sony and other electronics manufacturers will pay nearly $125 million to settle claims by indirect buyers of optical disc drives that they conspired to fix the price of the devices. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg preliminarily approved a class action settlement with Sony, Panasonic, NEC Corporation and Hitachi-LG sought by indirect buyers, and preliminarily certified the settlement classes at a hearing on July 21. "I'm comfortable with the [proposed] order," Seeborg said. "I know how hard-fought this litigation has been." A long list of plaintiffs including Hewlett-Packard sued disc drive suppliers in 2010 claiming a bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme that allowed the defendants to control 90 percent of the optical disc drive market and rake in more than $45 billion in revenue between 2004 and 2008, according to HP. The year before, the Justice Department revealed that it was investigating possible antitrust violations in the optical disc drive industry. Hitachi-LG Data Storage pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations discovered in the probe and paid a $21.1 million criminal fine, and some of its employees went to prison. The $124.5 million settlement with the four defendants represents a 31 percent recovery of damages to plaintiffs by market share, according to the plaintiffs' preliminary settlement motion. "We feel it's a very solid number in terms of percentage recovery," class counsel Jeff Friedman told the court on July 21. Hitachi-LG will pay $73 million into the settlement fund. Sony's share is $28.5 million, Panasonic will pay $16.5 million and NEC will fork over $6.5 million, according to the motion. For indirect buyers in the 24 jurisdictions certified by the court in February, the settlement amount represents 15 percent -- $840 million -- of total damages, the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs' damages expert had estimated that indirect buyer damages totaled $1.67 billion nationwide between April 2003 and December 2008. Class counsel will ask for up to 25 percent of the settlement fund in attorney's fees, according to the motion. The plaintiffs will request $4,500 for each class representative. Six defendants and their subsidiaries remain in the indirect buyer case, including Toshiba and Philips -- the two defendants with the largest market share, according to the motion. The plaintiffs said they anticipate recovering additional settlements or an award after trial. The settlement class includes individuals in 23 states and the District of Columbia that bought computers and standalone optical disc drives between 2003 and 2008. Panasonic-branded computers were excluded from the class, though its standalone disc drives were included. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley oversaw the settlement discussions. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero oversaw discovery disputes. In April, Seeborg awarded direct buyers $37 million following six years of litigation. SOUTHERN LANDWORX: Faces "Ayala" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS ARMANDO AYALA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. SOUTHERN LANDWORX, INC., FRANK J GONZALEZ, Case 1:16-cv-23145-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. SOUTHERN LANDWORX, INC.'s main line of business include landscape construction. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Markow Seeks Review From "Levitt" Suit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Gregory Markow filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Adam Levitt, et al. v. Southwest Airlines Company, Case No. 1:11-cv-08176, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The appellate case is captioned as Adam Levitt, et al. v. Southwest Airlines Company, Case No. 16-3002, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 30, 2016, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted Gregory Markow's motion for reconsideration and vacated the court's order of April 25, 2016, awarding class counsel fees. Markow, a class member, moved the District Court to reconsider its approval (in a reduced amount) of attorney's fees for class counsel for work done after the original fee award and on appeal. Markow argued that the Court made legal errors in making the fee award. Judge Kennelly vacated the fee award and ordered notice to be provided to the class regarding the request for fees. A full-text copy of Judge Kennelly's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/1st4di from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs-Appellees ADAM J. LEVITT and HERBERT C. MALONE are represented by: Joseph Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com Objector-Appellant Gregory Markow is represented by: Melissa Ann Holyoak, Esq. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1899 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (573) 823-5377 E-mail: melissaholyoak@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY is represented by: Huey Thomas Wells, Jr., MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE PC 1901 N. Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203-0000 Telephone: (205) 254-1062 Facsimile: (205) 714-6362 E-mail: twells@maynardcooper.com ST. LOUIS RAMS: Suit Stays in Federal Court, 8th Cir. Ruled ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class action against the St. Louis Rams will remain in federal court, the Eighth Circuit ruled July 19. On Jan. 12, 2016, four fans sued The St. Louis Rams, The St. Louis Rams Partnership and ITB Football Company in St. Louis City court. The filing came less than 24 hours after the National Football League gave approval for the Rams to move to Los Angeles. The fans claimed Rams executives misled fans about the team's intention to move from St. Louis to Los Angeles in order to induce the fans to continue to buy tickets and merchandise. The Rams filed a notice of removal, seeking to move the case to federal court arguing jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Once in federal court, the plaintiffs claimed the case should be remanded back to state court arguing a lack of minimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction The Rams submitted two post-removal affidavits to demonstrate diversity, but the district court expressly declined to consider the affidavits because they were not included as part of the Rams' original motion for removal. The Rams appealed, arguing the federal court erred in not allowing the affidavits. The plaintiffs conceded that the federal court should have allowed the affidavits, but argued that another appropriate and sufficient reason justified remand. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit ruled that the matter should stay in federal court. "A court has an independent obligation to ensure that the case is properly before it," the court wrote in a per curiam decision. "Discovery is often necessary because jurisdictional requirements rest on facts that can be disputed, for instance, the domicile of the parties. Here, the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the affidavits simply on the ground that the Rams submitted the affidavits post removal. The Rams notice of removal did not need to be accompanied by a submission of evidence. The district court's refusal to consider post removal evidence prejudiced the Rams by limiting their ability to prove their statutory right to a federal forum." Judges Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Lavenski R. Smith took part in the ruling. STELLAR ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits ------------------------------------------------------------ TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STELLAR ACQUISITIONS CORP., the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08496 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Stellar Acquisitions is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail TBK 82 CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Paz, Mario Hernandez, Hermenegildo Mercenario, And Miguel Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TBK 82 Corp., TBK 49 Corp., Raz 49th Street, LLC, Raz East 82nd LLC (all d/b/a Calista Superfoods), Chiyan Ng, Thomas Ng, Howard Chung and Jennifer Chung, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05567 (N.J. Sup., July 12, 2016), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate and/or control health food restaurants "Calista Superfoods" located at 301 E. 49th Street, New York, New York 10017 and 1217 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10028 where Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and ostensibly employed as delivery workers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 2540 New York, NY10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TEXAS FINANCIAL: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits --------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS FINANCIAL JUDGMENTS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08511 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Texas Financial is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail TROY CAPITAL: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits -------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROY CAPITAL LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08505 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Troy Capital is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Curiel May Allow "Cohen" Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the day after Donald Trump accepted the Republican party's nomination for President, a federal judge in San Diego said he's likely to allow a major lawsuit against him to go to trial. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said he's likely to deny Trump's motion for summary judgment in Cohen v. Trump, one of two class actions against his now-defunct Trump University. "The court believes at this point there's sufficient evidence to get this to trial," Curiel told the courtroom packed with reporters and lawyers. Curiel's tentative order means both class actions against Trump University out of San Diego are likely to go to trial. In Cohen v. Trump, lead plaintiff Art Cohen claims the billionaire GOP presidential candidate knew Trump University was defrauding customers but chose to run it anyway. The class claims Trump violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was initially created to crack down on the mafia and organized crime. The pursuit of civil RICO claims, which triples damages and attorney's fees, distinguishes Cohen from the other San Diego class action, Low v. Trump University. Both cases hinge on similar fraud claims related to the use of the word "university," which the students claim led them to believe Trump University was accredited. Some students paid as much as $35,000 for the real estate seminar classes. The former students also claim Trump University misrepresented that mentors were "hand-selected" by Trump himself, and that the mentors did not provide the hands-on experience students paid thousands for. Daniel Petrocelli, Trump's attorney, said he recognized the high burden defendants must meet for a summary judgment motion to succeed. He nevertheless told Curiel, "Let me just take a shot at seeing if I can illuminate what's going on." Petrocelli called the motion a "reality check" and proceeded to blame the "marketing enterprise" of the shuttered real estate school for the alleged misconduct. He said Trump could not be personally responsible for fraud because he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the school or its advertising campaign. Trump University originally started as an online seminar, which was later expanded to include the live events and mentorship program currently in dispute in the two class actions in San Diego. While Trump may have been involved in "hand-selecting" the mentors and instructors used in the online seminar, by 2007 his involvement with Trump University was "fairly minimal," Petrocelli said. But Curiel pressed Petrocelli on the scope of Trump's involvement, saying evidence lodged in court showed "at a minimum" Trump was involved in reviewing marketing materials and advertisements to ensure the "Trump brand" was not diluted. Petrocelli again shifted the blame away from Trump, saying a civil RICO claim can only apply to the "leader" of the forbidden conduct, be it a marketing director or manager. He called into question a video cited by the plaintiffs which they claim demonstrated Trump's involvement in the alleged "marketing scheme" where he talked about "hand-selecting" mentors for the program. Petrocelli said the video was essentially copy-and-pasted from an interview Trump did when the online seminar program was started. "There's no evidence in the record to show he knew they were using that video to promote Trump University. This idea he was somehow in the center of it is not supported by the facts in this case," Petrocelli said. Further insisting Trump was not the person running Trump University, Petrocelli said the company was "branded off of his name just like any other celebrity endorsement." When the plaintiffs' attorney Jason Forge addressed the court, he told Curiel that the "overarching theme" of the motions filed by Trump "is somehow belligerence trumps substance." "He set the tone for the fraudulent betrayal of this university as being the functional equivalent of learning from Donald Trump," Forge said. Forge said multiple newspaper advertisements featured prominent pictures of Donald Trump alongside claims he "hand-picked" instructors who would teach Trump University students his real estate secrets. "It's abundantly clear he was the top man and had the authority in the marketing scheme," Forge said. Curiel also said he was inclined to deny clarifying a portion of the case description in the Low case as to the "university claim" asserted by the plaintiffs, saying it was not clear what exactly he'd be clarifying. One of the claims Forge asserts was previously agreed to in a stipulated description of the case for the class notice was that the use of "university" led students to believe the school was "legitimate." But when Petrocelli took over as the fourth attorney to represent Trump, he disputed the "university" claim, saying it was limited to students who believed the school was "accredited." "It was misleading to hold out this enterprise as a university," Forge said. "That's what came across pretty closely in the class notice. The university aspect of this case was really talking about legitimacy, not accreditation." Forge suggested clarifying the certified claim would be as simple as referencing the "university aspect" as it was described in the class notice. Curiel also addressed Trump's motion to decertify the Low class in which Trump argued that each individual student signed up for Trump University for various reasons that cannot be covered in a blanket class action. The judge said he wanted to focus on the reasons that students signed up for Trump University. Petrocelli said he would want to call former students as witnesses to ask why they took the courses, which plaintiff attorney Rachel Jensen objected to. But Curiel reminded the attorneys on both sides that he wanted to look at how the case will unfold "since so few of us, if any of us, have actually had a class action case go to trial." Curiel took the matters under submission and a written order is expected soon. * * * Bianca Bruno, in a separate report for Courthouse News Service, said the San Diego federal judge who has been publicly chastised by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will hear arguments Friday for and against dismissing one of the class action cases against the now-defunct Trump University. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel will decide whether the newer of two San Diego class actions against Trump and his shuttered real estate school should be dismissed on a summary judgment motion. In Cohen v. Trump, lead plaintiff Art Cohen claims the billionaire presidential candidate knew Trump University was defrauding customers but chose to run it anyway. The case claims Trump violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was initially created to crack-down on the mafia and organized crime. The pursuit of civil RICO claims, which triples damages and attorney's fees, distinguishes Cohen from the other San Diego class action, Low v. Trump University. Both cases hinge on similar fraud claims related the use of the word "university," which the students claim led them to believe Trump University was accredited. Some students paid as much as $35,000 for the real estate seminar classes. The former students also claim Trump University misrepresented that mentors were "hand-selected" by Trump himself, and that the mentors did not provide the hands-on experience students paid thousands for. In order to prove the RICO claim, Cohen must meet a much higher burden of proof showing that Trump knew the operation was fraudulent and proceeded with it anyway. In the initial filing for summary judgment, Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli called the RICO case "an overreach from inception." "It stretches civil RICO beyond the breaking point and would effectively federalize consumer advertising fraud claims, and subject officers, directors and employees of every Fortune 500 company to unwarranted personal liability." Trump's lack of personal involvement in Trump University, which was highly publicized following the release of his deposition transcripts, means he could not have knowingly participated in or conducted a fraudulent operation, the defense claims. The defense also chalked up the use of the word university as "sales puffery" found in advertising everywhere. Curiel will also hear arguments July 22, on a motion to decertify the class in Low v. Trump University, with Trump arguing that each of the defendants had individual experiences and he is constitutionally entitled to have damages assessed on an individual basis. Trump cited changing circumstances in the case -- including Curiel's decision to allow former lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to opt out of representing the class -- and said the recent switch- ups have positioned the case in "unchartered waters." Low and the other plaintiffs claim Trump missed the cut-off date to file the motion to decertify, but Trump asserts the cut-off date doesn't apply since the motion was filed in response to recent changes in the case. Trump also claims the class members cannot prove Trump University utilized the same marketing tactics across the board, including that Trump University instructors were "handpicked" by Trump or that the real estate school was referred to as "accredited." "They cannot reconcile the disparate issues in their claims with the requirements for maintaining the case as a class action. Their failure to formulate a viable trial plan exemplifies some of the many issues which now compel decertification," the filing states. The hearing on both matters was set for 1:30 p.m on July 22. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cordas" Suit for Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CORDAS, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case 4:16-cv-04065 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2016), alleges deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, breach of contract, fraud without the intent to perform, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing, willful misconduct, and unjust enrichment. UBER is an "on-demand" car service that allows passengers to request private drivers through applications for iPhone, Android, and other similar devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristopher P. Badame, Esq. Joseph H. Hunter, Esq. Michele E. Pillette, Esq. BADAME & ASSOCIATES, APC 25432 Trabuco Road, Suite 207 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Phone: (949) 770-2867 Fax: (866) 230-3044 E-mail: kbadame@badameandassociates.com jhunter@badameandassociates.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Cancellation Fees ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in San Francisco claims Uber automatically cancels rides people order and charges them cancellation fees. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Blasts Background Check on Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Uber's team of unlicensed private eyes engaged in "blatantly fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct" to dig up dirt on a Connecticut man behind a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan opposing surge pricing, a federal judge said on July 25. The day Spencer Meyer sued Uber and its CEO Travis Kalanick on Dec. 16, the company's general counsel Salle Yoo floated a question to the company's general security officer. "Could we find out a little more about this plaintiff?" Yoo reportedly asked in an email. The message eventually got forwarded to Mat Henley, Uber's director of investigations, who retained Manhattan-based firm Global Precision Research to snoop on Meyer and his lawyer Andrew Schmidt. In a 31-page ruling published July 25, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff skewered the course the San Francisco-based company took. "It is a sad day when, in response to the filing of a commercial lawsuit, a corporate defendant feels compelled to hire unlicensed private investigators to conduct secret personal background investigations of both the plaintiff and his counsel," Rakoff wrote. "It is sadder yet when these investigators flagrantly lie to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and his counsel in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to obtain derogatory information about them." Doing business under the name Ergo, the Uber-retained company describes itself as a business intelligence and advisory firm, and its website boasts of taking on 800 projects in nearly 120 countries. The CIA's former chief strategy officer Todd Egeland and ex- Department of State employee Matthew Moneyhon serve as its managing partners, and they received Uber's inquiry about opposition on the lawsuit. Boasting that they "do quite a bit of this work for law firms," the men assigned the case in January to Ergo's investigator Miguel Santos-Neves, who used false pretenses to pester 28 of his targets' acquaintances and colleagues, according to the ruling. The judge said that, in one instance, Santos-Neves posed as a researcher upon learning that Meyer had been a Yale University- affiliated conservationist. Santos-Neves also illicitly recorded phone conversations without consent in Connecticut and New Hampshire, states with two-party consent laws, according to the ruling. Following a roughly two-week investigation, Ergo reported to Uber: "Meyer may be particularly sensitive to any publicity that tarnishes his professional reputation." Ergo's cover got blown after a co-counsel on Meyer's team, Brian Feldman, got suspicious and followed up on who had been calling the acquaintances of the firm and its client. Though Uber and Ergo sought to protect their communications under work-product privilege, Judge Rakoff found that the crime-fraud exception undermined that claim. "Here, the court finds that Ergo, in investigating plaintiff, was engaged in fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct, and that many of the documents over which Ergo claimed work-product protection were intended to facilitate this fraudulent and arguably criminal activity," the opinion states. Uber and Ergo did not immediately reply to emailed requests for comment July 25. In a phone interview, Meyer's attorney Feldman emphasized that Ergo's investigation failed because of his client's "sterling professional reputation." "We're certainly pleased with the court's opinion," he said, declining to say much more to protect his client's privacy. The judge, however, had much more to say about Uber and Ergo's conduct. "Even beyond the rules of professional conduct, moreover, litigation is a truth-seeking exercise in which counsel, although acting as zealous advocates for their clients, are required to play by the rules," Rakoff wrote. "It would plainly contravene this truth-seeking function if non-lawyers working for counsel, such as Ergo, could make fraudulent representations in order to surreptitiously gain information about litigation adversaries through intrusive inquiries of their personal acquaintances and business associates." Rakoff ordered Uber not to use the information that it gleaned on Meyer and Schmidt or try to investigate their backgrounds any further. "Specifically, the court hereby enjoins both defendants and Ergo from undertaking any further personal background investigations of individuals involved in this litigation through the use of false pretenses, unlicensed investigators, illegal secret recordings, or other unlawful, fraudulent, or unethical means," the opinion states. Uber avoided monetary sanctions by reaching an undisclosed settlement for the plaintiff team's legal fees. The case captioned, SPENCER MEYcR, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- TRAVIS KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants (S.D.N.Y.). UNIFUND CCR: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits -------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08528 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Unifund is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail VION HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits ---------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VION HOLDINGS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08520 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Vion Holdings is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail VXI GLOBAL: Phone Operator Alleges Violations FLSA, OMFWSA & OPPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- CODY LIVINGSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv- 05453 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2016), is brought by the Plaintiff seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio doctrine of unjust enrichment. VXI is a corporate entity headquartered in Los Angeles, California. According to its Web site, the Company "is a leading provider of business process and information technology outsourcing services to its clients. VXI specializes in call center and BPO1 services, software development, quality assurance testing, and infrastructure outsourcing with more than 23,000 employees worldwide." In this capacity, the Company operates Call Centers in California, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant at the Youngstown, Ohio Call Center as a Phone Operator since approximately December 2015. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R.Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - Jerry Martin, Esq. David Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ferrareze" Lawsuit Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RODRIGO FERRAREZE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAMES SARAKINIS, MICHAEL DOWD, and JERE HEIKKILA, Case 0:16-cv-61725-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Waveguide Communications, Inc. offers global, managed I.T. solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Lerner, Esq. KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP One Financial Plaza, Suite 2001 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 527-1115 Fax: (954) 527-1116 E-mail: blerner@kvllaw.com - and - John P. Salas, Esq. SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A. 8551 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300 Plantation, FL 33322 Phone: (954) 315-1155 Fax: (954) 452-3311 E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com WILLIAMS ZINHAM: Must Comply With FDCPA Disclosure Requirements --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS, ZINMAN & PARHAM PC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-15672 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling which granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm Williams, Zinman & Parham PC (WZP). Maria Hernandez filed the lawsuit against WZP in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as a putative class action, alleging that WZP, a law firm retained by Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. to assist in its collection efforts, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending a debt collection letter that lacked the disclosures required under section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Hernandez's FDCPA claims. In its motion, WZP did not address whether its letter lacked the content required by section 1692g(a). Rather, it contended that it was not required to comply with that provision because Thunderbird's March letter was the "initial communication" sent to Hernandez with respect to the debt at issue and therefore the sole communication triggering section 1692g(a)'s requirements. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of WZP. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector -- first or subsequent -- to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. The appellate court thus found that the district court erred in concluding that, because WZP was not the first debt collector to communicate with Hernandez about her debt, it had no obligation to comply with the statutory validation notice requirement. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 20, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/hsvh8L from Leagle.com. Aaron D. Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson PLLC, Boca Raton, Florida, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Victoria Orze -- vorze@dickinsonwright.com -- Anne L. Tiffen - atiffen@dickinsonwright.com -- and Charles H. Oldham - coldham@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellee. Kristin Bateman (argued), Attorney; Nandan M. Joshi, Senior Litigation Counsel; To-Quyen Truong, Deputy General Counsel; Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Burke W. Kappler, Colin Hector, and Thomas E. Kane, Attorneys; David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel; Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, General Counsel; Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission. WORLDWIDE ASSET: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits --------------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WORLDWIDE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08547 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and $1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation" in debt collection lawsuits. The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo- Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Worldwide Asset is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Telephone: (214) 850 8095 Facsimile: (972) 243 2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Ex-Wrestlers' Suit Over Brain Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff D. Gorman,writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that dozens of retired World Wrestling Entertainment wrestlers are suing Vince McMahon and his company over the concussions they claim to have suffered from decades of bumps in the ring. Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Joe "Road Warrior Animal" Laurinaitis and 51 other performers sued their former employer in Connecticut Federal Court on July 18, for racketeering, misclassifying them as independent contractors, and hiding the hazards of their job. They claimed to suffer Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and other maladies from the "repetitive head trauma" of performing their wrestling moves "correctly." "WWE wrestling matches, unlike other contact sports, involve very specific moves that are scripted, controlled, directed and choreographed by WWE," the plaintiffs stated. "As such, the moves that resulted in Named Plaintiffs' head injuries were the direct result of the WWE's actions." Also, they claimed that WWE refused to provide them with health insurance and publicly questioned the CTE diagnoses in the deaths of Chris Benoit and Andrew "Test" Martin. WWE responded to the suit by calling it "ridiculous." The list of plaintiffs is a who's who of wrestling's past stars, including "Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff, King Kong Bundy, Ahmed Johnson and Ken Patera. Demolition members Bill "Ax" Eadie and Barry "Smash" Darsow joined forces again in the lawsuit, as did The Powers of Pain (Terry "Warlord" Szopinski and Sione "Barbarian" Vailahi. Dave and Earl Hebner, the identical twin referees involved in Hulk Hogan's controversial WWE title loss in 1988, are also among the plaintiffs. Even some "enhancement talent," who did the job of losing matches on television, joined the lawsuit. These names include Don Driggers and "Beef Stew" Lou Marconi. The wrestlers stated that WWE "deliberately ignored and actively concealed" information that could help them deal with their injuries from "diseases such as CTE that can result in suicide, drug abuse and violent behavior." "WWE placed corporate gain over its wrestlers' health, safety, and financial security, choosing to leave the Plaintiffs severely injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and bodies," the plaintiffs said. They included the following quote from CTE expert Dr. Bennett Omalu, who Will Smith portrayed in the 2015 movie Concussion: "The deleterious effects of repeated concussions to brain cells and nerve fibers are additive and cumulative." WWE instituted a Wellness Policy in 2006, but the plaintiffs said it was "too little too late" for them and "takes no account of former wrestlers at all." The plaintiffs acknowledged that WWE has donated more than $2 million to the Concussion Legacy Foundation, which was founded by former wrestler Chris "Harvard" Nowinski. However, they stated that "no wrestler's brain has been studied by CLF since the WWE donated to the organization." According to the plaintiffs, WWE was aware of the effects of concussions in 1995, when it scripted a story of Shawn Michaels collapsing in the ring after getting kicked in the head by Owen Hart. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs told stories of their battles in the ring and their aftereffects. Johnny "The Bull" Hugger said he was knocked out during a match in 2002 but was told by a WWE doctor to "shake it off." "If you spoke up about injuries, you would be labeled 'injury prone' and lose your spot," said Patera, a former Olympic weightlifter. Snuka referenced the infamous incident in which "Rowdy" Roddy Piper smashed him in the head with a coconut on a "Piper's Pit" TV segment. Orndorff stated that he "gets easily confused, is clinically depressed, paranoid, repeats himself constantly and has severe mood swings." Ahmed Johnson (real name: Tony Norris) was knocked out in 1996 when Jeff Jarrett jumped off the top rope and smashed a guitar over his head. Butch "The Natural" Reed said he was sometimes "kicked so hard you were paralyzed for a few seconds" but added that he "needed to be in the ring; otherwise there was no payday." "Princess" Victoria Otis stated that she suffered two cracked vertebrae in her neck in 1984, but a WWE official told her to "take a break" and "see how things went." The plaintiffs range in age from 34-year-old Marc "Mohammed Hassan" Copani to 84-year-old Don Leo Jonathan, a veteran of battles against Andre the Giant. Another plaintiff, former Extreme Championship Wrestling star Axl Rotten, died earlier this year at the age of 44. His estate is representing him in the lawsuit. Omalu is analyzing Rotten's brain tissue, according to the 214-page lawsuit. "The wrestlers that perform regularly for WWE, at least since the early 1990s, are required to sign 'booking contracts' that seek to strip them of any rights they may have to workers' compensation (and other protected statutory rights) by fraudulently classifying them as 'independent contractors,'" the plaintiffs alleged. They also described the physical toll caused by taking basic falls, or "bumps," in the ring, as well as more elaborate moves such as the bodyslam, piledriver, DDT and brainbuster. The wrestlers sued for a declaration that WWE misclassified them as "independent contractors with few if any rights." George "The One Man Gang" Gray asserted that he had to "keep his mouth shut" when he was ordered to portray the "racially stereotypical" gimmick of Akeem the African Dream, even though Gray is white. Copani stated that although he is Italian, he was cast as the Arabic character Mohammad Hassan. After the London terrorist bombing in 2005, his gimmick was scrapped as "politically incorrect," he stated. Also, the wrestlers sued for declarations that WWE should have known that their jobs would expose them to traumatic head injuries and that the wrestlers' contracts were "unconscionable." They also accused McMahon of "a pattern of racketeering activity, which has continued for well over two decades" and has deprived them of "money and property amounting collectively to millions of dollars" as a result of their being treated as independent contractors. In addition, the wrestlers sued WWE for fraudulent concealment, the wrongful death of Rotten, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act., the National Labor Relations Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. They also sought an injunction to create a "a Court- supervised, WWE-funded medical monitoring program, which would facilitate the diagnosis and adequate treatment of Plaintiffs for neurodegenerative disorder or disease." Former wrestler Billy Jack Haynes filed a similar lawsuit in 2014. So did Michelle James, the mother of Matt "Doink the Clown" Osborne, last year. Osborne died of a drug overdose in 2013 at the age of 57. The wrestlers are being represented by: Brenden Leydon, Esq. Tooher Wocl & Leydon 80 Fourth Street Stamford, CT 06905 Tel: 203-517-0456 866-554-1709 Fax: 203-324-1407 WWE slammed Leydon in a statement, according to a Bloomberg News report. "This is another ridiculous attempt by the same attorney who has previously filed class action lawsuits against WWE, both of which have been dismissed," the company asserted. "A federal judge has already found that this lawyer made patently false allegations about WWE, and this is more of the same." YOLO, CA: Faces "Alder" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- EVAN ALDER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. COUNTY OF YOLO, Case 2:16-at-00871 (E.D. Cal., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendant alleged unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. County of Yolo is a political subdivision of the State of California and employed the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Messing, Esq. Jason H. Jasmine, Esq. MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LIT 980 9thStreet, Suite 380 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 446-5297 Fax: (916) 448-5047 E-mail: gary@majlabor.com jasonmailabor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *