/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160809.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 158 Headlines 21ST CENTURY: "Benzion" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida 2425 BROADWAY: "Chen" Files Suit Over FLSA Breach A & M CONTRACTORS: Leyva Seeks Certification of Class of Laborers A1 TELEKOM: Consumer Association Wins SIM Flat Class Action ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Two Stockholders Class Actions ADVANCE STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Whitehead" Suit ADVANCED ROOFING: Pentiuk Suit Seeks Certification of Class AF HAUSER: Certification of Class Sought in Lifespan Medical Suit AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: Bridgeview Appeal Pending in U.S. Sup. Ct. AIR EVAC: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance Fees ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over St. Clair Severe Inmate Beating ALERE: Faces Class Action in Massachusetts Over Blood Test AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. AMAZING SIDING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ANZ BANK: Awaits Ruling on Critical Bank Fees Class Action ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT: Certification in "Darden" Suit Denied ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval BALTIMORE, MD: Bid to File Amended Complaint in "Cherry" Denied BIOGEN INC: GBR Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit to 1st Cir. BLUE FLAME: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BREATHLESS MEN'S: Judge Tosses Dancer's FLSA Collective Action BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Bowden" Suit in Northern District Alabama BUMBLE BEE: DOJ to Focus on Most Culpable Execs in Antitrust Case CAREMARK PHC: Class of Call Center Reps Certified in "Woods" Suit CARIDAD-BRONX: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval COMCAST CORP: Washington AG Sues Over Consumer Act Violations COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued COVISINT CORP: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set COWAY: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Purifiers CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Sought in "Pietraszewski" Suit CREDIT CONTROL: O'Connell Seeks Certification of Class in Wisc. CT & TC: Faces "Wen" Suit in Eastern District New York CYTRX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California DHL: November 4 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing DOONEY & BOURKE: Court Dismisses "Rael" False Discount Suit EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FACEBOOK INC: Insurers in Dispute Over Class Action Settlement FIRST NATIONAL: Court Partly Grants Attorney's Fees, Costs FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California FITBIT INC: Judge Sends Securities Actions Back to State Courts FONTEM US: Sept. 12 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit FOREMOST INSURANCE: Court Wants Class Certification Discovery FRESNO, CA: Residents Face Rusty Water Problems GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Sanchez" Suit Sent to Arbitration GROUPON INC: Appeal Filed From W.D.N.C. Ruling in "Keena" Suit GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify "Vasquez" Class GULF COAST: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in "Francois" Suit Denied GUTHY-RENKER: FDA Investigates Hair Product-Related Complaints HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: "Edwards" FDCA Suit Removed to Atlanta Div. HHGREGG INC: Not Obligated to Pay Bonuses, Ind. Ct. App. Says HIGHLAND PARK, NJ: Williams Files Appeal in 3rd Cir. Ct. HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Pension System Sues Over Lions Gate Merger HOMERS TASTE: Faces "Zhu" Suit in Eastern District New York IACOBONI SITE: "Stump" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA INNOVATIVE FACILITY: "Ocaranza" Suit Seeks OT, Reimbursements IOWA: Settles Apartments Downtown Tenants' Class Action JEUNESSE LLC: Faces "Aboltin" Suit in Ariz. Dist. Ct. KANSAS: Mosier Appeals Ruling in Planned Parenthood Suit KOMET USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Degnen" Suit KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Listeria-Contaminated Peas LAMPS PLUS: Brief in "Varela" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Jan. 9, 2007 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26MM MAINE FISH: Dineen Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement MDL 2328: A Plus Appeals Ruling in Pool Products Antitrust Case MDL 2437: Direct Purchasers Seek Certification of Class MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Sued in Texas Over Proposed Sale to Range MOSER ENGINE: Schultz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Owens" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Unveils New Concussion Protocol Amid Suits NEW YORK: "Seibert" Suit v. Tax Dept. Transferred to Albany County NEWBY ISLAND: Landfill Odor Settlement Gets Final Court Okay NIANTIC INC: N.J. Real Estate Owner Files Suit Over Pokemon Go NOB LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection NRS BILLING: "Williams" Suit Proceeds with Discovery NSK LTD: Settles Indirect Purchasers' Class Action for $34.5MM NUUN & COMPANY: Faces "Riedel" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York NUVASIVE INC: No Trial Date Yet in Securities Litigation PANDORA MEDIA: 4 Suits by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan Pending PANERA BREAD: "Boswell" Files Appeal in 8th Cir. Ct. PHELAN HALLINAN: "Borg" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Letourneau PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Blais PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Yet Properly Served PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending in Italy and Chile POINT & PAY: Cross Seeks Certification of Class & Two Subclasses PSCU INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Jones" Suit REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Pending REMINGTON ARMS: Missouri Judge Set to Decide on Rifle Settlement RENO'S INC: "Downard" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q2 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2017 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 10 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q2 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Must File Expert Disclosures REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11th Circuit Decision in "Graham" Case Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,473 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 23 Non-Shareholder Class Action Cases Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Won't Review "Price" Ruling REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Stayed Pending "Price" REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 12 Status Conference in "Collora" REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Set for Sept. 12 in "Black" RITE AID: Certification of Consumers Class Sought in "Moore" Suit SADDLEBACK EYE: Sued in Cal. Over LASIK Blade-Free Procedure SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Counsel Named in "Baker" Suit SAN DIEGO, CA: Leon Dismissed from "Jones" Suit SANTORINI REST: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SANTORINI REST: Faces "Ramirez" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT STERICYCLE: Pension Funds File Fraud Class Action in Chicago STRATASYS LTD: Macomb Employees Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Thaler Suit in New York Supreme Court TARGET CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Minn. TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates File Class Action TERRAFORM POWER: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Chamblee" Suit THOMA BRAVO: Faces "Garagarza" Suit Over Qlik Acquisition TOBIKO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT TROTT & TROTT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Suit TYCOON CONSTRUCTION: "Lituma" Sues Over Breach of Contract UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Can't Use PI Info in Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Arbitration Bid in Antitrust Case VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jefferson County May Join Fraud Class Action VOLKSWAGEN AG: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Investors' Class Action WEWORK: Faces NLRB Complaint Over Arbitration Agreement WHIRLPOOL CORP: Motion to Quash Denied in "Chambers" Settlement WILLIS TOWERS: Resolution on Fee Bid Pending in Del. Chancery WILSON COUNTY, KS: Class Certification in "Ogden" Suit Granted WORK OUT WORLD: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Susinno" Class Suit * Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up 17% in 1st Half 2016 * New York Governor Signs Bill Against Tampon Sales Tax * Volkswagen Case Prompts Call for US-Style Class Action in Korea ********* 21ST CENTURY: "Benzion" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Benzion, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. 21st Century Oncology, LLC, 21st Century Oncology, Inc., 21st Century Oncology Management Services, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC, Case No, 9:16-cv-80597, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00591-UA-MRM to the proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Mac R. McCoy. 21st Century provides state-of-the-art radiation therapy and integrated cancer treatments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 - and - Michael James Pascucci, Esq. THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, PA 5400 S University Dr Ste 413 1920 N Commerce Pkwy Davie, FL 33328-5313 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 E-mail: mpascucci@elplawyers.com - and - Jerry R. Linscott, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 200 S Orange Avenue Suite 2300 PO Box 112 Orlando, FL 32802-0112 Telephone: (407) 649 4000 2425 BROADWAY: "Chen" Files Suit Over FLSA Breach ------------------------------------------------- Jianjun Chen, Qing Pu, Youchun Zheng, Allen Chun Kang and Minzhong Duan, Chee Kiang Foo, Jianshe Wang, Guolong Fu, Guangzheng Sun, Genxiang Zhang, Gengshen Zhao, Jianxin Feng and Qun Wan on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 2425 Broadway Chao Restaurant, LLC, WMK 89th Street LLC, Trattoria Di Vino, Tsu Yue Wang, "John" Wang, Cho Kam Sze, Cindy "Doe", Anthony J. Mazzola, Victor Kasner and Kevin Garcia, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05735 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 2425 Broadway Chao Restaurant, LLC does business as Ollie's To Go Restaurant. WMK 89th Street LLC does business as Trattoria Di Vinocs, Inc. Jianjun Chen, Qing Pu, Youchun Zheng, Allen Chun Kang and Minzhong Duan, Chee Kiang Foo, Jianshe Wang, Guolong Fu, Guangzheng Sun, Genxiang Zhang, Gengshen Zhao, Jianxin Feng and Qun Wan are pro se plaintiffs. A & M CONTRACTORS: Leyva Seeks Certification of Class of Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SANTIAGO LEYVA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. A & M CONTRACTORS, INC., PALMERA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, MOHAMMAD YOUSEF, and ABDULHAMID ("ABED") DUMANI, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00631 (S.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification of his overtime claims against the Defendants as a collective action, and issuance of a judicially approved notice and schedule to a class consisting of: All individuals who are employed by or have been employed by A&M Contractors, Inc., Palmera Construction & Development LLC, Mohammad Yousef, and/or Abdulhamid "Abed" Dumani at any time since March 10, 2013 as laborers or construction workers. Santiago Leyva filed the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to him, to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs owed to current and former laborers and construction workers, who worked over the past three years for the Defendants. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6kPrHrB9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com A1 TELEKOM: Consumer Association Wins SIM Flat Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Telecompaper reports that the Commercial Court in Vienna ruled that a clause in A1 Telekom Austria's terms and conditions not to pay out a proportional reimbursement for a SIM flat sum is inadmissible. The court did not see a noticeable factual justification that A1 should receive fees in return for no service at the end of the contract term. The Austrian Consumer Association (VKI) had launched a class action suit on behalf of the Employment Chamber of Upper Austria. ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Two Stockholders Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- The following is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: Notice to Former ADT Stockholders Regarding Litigation Challenging the Merger with Protection IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MSS 12-09 TRUST, on behalf of all itself and all other similarly situated stockholder of The ADT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS COLLIGAN, RICHARD J. DALY, TIMOTHY DONAHUE, ROBERT DUTKOWSKY, BRUCE GORDON, NAREN GURSAHANEY, BRIDGETTE HELLER, KATHLEEN HYLE, and CHRISTOPHER HYLEN, Defendants. C.A. No. 12133-VCL PETER ROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE ADT CORPORATION, NAREN GURSAHANEY, THOMAS COLLIGAN, RICHARD J. DALY, TIMOTHY DONAHUE, ROBERT DUTKOWSKY, BRUCE GORDON, BRIDGETTE HELLER, KATHLEEN HYLE, CHRISTOPHER HYLEN, Defendants. C.A. No. 12160-VCL NOTICE On February 16, 2016, the ADT Corporation ("ADT") announced that it had entered into an agreement with Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo") pursuant to which Apollo would acquire ADT pursuant to a transaction in which each share of ADT stock would receive $42.00 in cash. On March 24, 2016 and April 4, 2016, two separate ADT stockholders filed purported class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery against ADT's board members (the "Board") and CEO alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed transaction (the "Transaction"). The lawsuits challenged, among other things, ADT's public disclosures about the Transaction. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits identified information that the plaintiffs contended should have been, but was not, disclosed to ADT's stockholders in the proxy statement related to the Transaction. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted certain disclosure claims relating to, inter alia: (a) prior engagements and fees paid to Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("BofA Merrill Lynch") -- the Board's financial advisor retained to run the "go shop" process associated with the Transaction -- by Apollo; (b) prior engagements of and fees paid to Goldman Sachs (the Board's primary financial advisor) and BofA Merrill Lynch by Koch Industries, Inc., which participated in the Transaction alongside Apollo; and (c) information about the process leading to ADT's decision to grant Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP a conflicts waiver that allowed the law firm to represent Apollo in connection with the Transaction despite simultaneously representing ADT in other pending litigations. The April 4, 2016 lawsuit also sought to enjoin the Transaction and alleged concerns relating to the proposed consideration in the Transaction. On April 11, 2016, and in response to the lawsuits, ADT made supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") within an amended Definitive Proxy Statement that it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Supplemental Disclosures made the disclosure claims asserted in the lawsuits moot. Therefore, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits petitioned the Court for voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits. On April 12, 2016 and April 13, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered orders dismissing the lawsuits and the claims asserted in the lawsuits with prejudice only as to all named plaintiffs individually, and without prejudice as to any actual or potential claims of the putative class or any other class members. Pursuant to the orders, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiffs' potential application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 22, 2016, ADT's stockholders approved the Transaction, which closed on May 2, 2016. After dismissal of the lawsuits, the parties commenced negotiations concerning plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees and expenses based on the alleged benefits provided by the Supplemental Disclosures. After negotiations, ADT has agreed to make a fee and expense payment to plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuits of $350,000.00 to resolve any application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be made by counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuits for the alleged benefit conferred on ADT stockholders through the issuance of the Supplemental Disclosures. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of fees and expenses or its reasonableness. If you have any questions regarding the litigation, please contact any of the attorneys below: LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Donald J. Enright 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 524-4290 Counsel for Plaintiffs SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Paul C. Gluckow 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2653 Attorneys for Defendants The ADT Corporation, Naren Gursahaney, Thomas Colligan, Richard J. Daly, Timothy Donahue, Robert Dutkowsky, Bruce Gordon, Bridgette Heller, Kathleen Hyle, and Christopher Hylen ADVANCE STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Whitehead" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Whitehead, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, moves the Court for a formal class certification order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.). The purported class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against the Defendant because of its alleged failure to adequately protect its employees' confidential personal information and/or private personal and/or financial information, which led to the loss, disclosure and breach of such information resulting in violation of his and the putative class's federal and state constitutional rights, rights under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, and damages. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DjBU5MFw The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com jason@thefllawfirm.com ADVANCED ROOFING: Pentiuk Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled PENTIUK, COUVEREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C., a Professional Corporation, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED ROOFING, a Michigan Domestic Profit Corporation and d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING - MIDWEST, a Michigan Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12863-DPH- EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class: "All person who: (1) on or after November 11, 2015, December 1, 2015, March 2, 2016, May 2, 2016, June 10, 2016, and July 26, 2016; (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant; and (3) which did not display a legally compliant opt out notice." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as class representative and Plaintiff's attorney as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G4cix44u The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry L. Morgan, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 2915 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200 Wyandotte, MI 48192 Telephone: (734) 281 7100 E-mail: Kmorganesq@aol.com AF HAUSER: Certification of Class Sought in Lifespan Medical Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LIFESPAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. A. F. HAUSER, INC., an Indiana corporation, HAUSER LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:16-cv- 07772 (N.D. Ill.), filed its motion for class certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiff proposes this class definition: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice. Lifespan asks the Court to certify the Class, appoint it as the Class representative, and appoint its attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Dhd3ZrI The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: Bridgeview Appeal Pending in U.S. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in the appeal case captioned Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. Jerry Clark, dba Affordable Digital Hearing, Case No. 16-91 (U.S. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2016). The case appeals lower court decisions entered in Case No. 14-3728 (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, Aug. 21, 2015) and Case No. 15-1793 (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, Aug. 21, 2015). The deadline to respond to the writ of certiorari is on August 19, 2016. Affordable Digital offers quality hearing aids. The Petitioner is represented by: David M. Oppenheim, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 E-mail: david@classlawyers.com AIR EVAC: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance Fees ---------------------------------------------------- EMS1 reports that over a dozen clients that were billed thousands of dollars for an air ambulance have asked a judge to certify a lawsuit as a class action. Attorneys Noble McIntyre and Ed White are representing more than a dozen clients in the suit, and have asked a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action. One individual, former OSU basketball coach Tommy Wade, was flown by medical helicopter last year when he had a heart attack. "$38,000 for a 20 minute air flight from Stillwater to Oklahoma City? I told them I can't pay the bill. I can't afford it," Mr. Wade told KFOR. Although Mr. Wade's insurance paid the air ambulance company what they felt was sufficient, the company is still billing Mr. Wade. Four air ambulance companies -- Air Evac EMS, Inc., Air Methods Corporation, Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC and EagleMed LLC -- have been named in the lawsuit as defendants. "They're making profit margins of in excess of 750%. These are huge profit margins they're trying to get from the average public," Mr. White said. EagleMed released the following statement to KFOR: "We are still looking into the allegations and prefer not to discuss ongoing litigation, especially when all we have is the initially filed Petition. EagleMed has been, and currently is, in network with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the State. At this point, we don't know why we were sued if our patient had BCBS insurance. We would expect the BCBS agreement to deal with this situation. The only other EagleMed patient was said to have United Health Care insurance, which covered about half of the cost. If our patients need financial assistance with our invoices, we work with them -- and we ask them to work with us when their insurance company underpays for services. We still would like to take our patient out of the middle and see if United Health Care will pay usual and customary rates." Air Evac released this statement as well: "Air Evac Lifeteam is still looking into the allegations and prefer not to discuss ongoing litigation, especially when all we have is the initially filed Petition. At this point, we don't know why we were sued. Based on the Petition, the only claim against Air Evac is for transporting a patient who was injured in an on-the-job incident. We would expect an on-the-job injury to be covered by workers' compensation with no patient financial responsibility. In addition, Air Evac has been, and currently is, in network with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the state. Caring for our patients doesn't stop when we get them to the hospital. If our patients need financial assistance with our invoices, we work with them -- and we ask them to work with us when their insurance company underpays for services." ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over St. Clair Severe Inmate Beating ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rashad Snell, writing for Alabama News, reports that a lawsuit was filed on July 25 in Montgomery County Circuit Court arising from a severe beating of an inmate by DOC employees at the St. Clair Correctional Facility, a prison well known for abuse, neglect, murders and beatings from the hands of prison guards and top officials at the prison. Birmingham attorney Tommy James represents the victim in this case. In July, 2014, Venture Harrison was severely beaten by two prison guards while their Lieutenant looked on and did nothing to stop the unprovoked attack. The guards ordered Venture Harrison out of his cell in the middle of the night, took him into the hallway outside of his area, handcuffed him, and then hit him on the back of his head with handcuffs wrapped around their knuckles, causing severe injuries, including 17 staples in his head, bruised ribs and permanent eye injuries. Mr. Harrison received multiple death threats from the defendants before and after the attack on him. "When Mr. Harrison was placed in the troubled St. Clair Correctional Facility, he was under the care, custody and control of DOC and its employees. Sadly, DOC guards beat the hell out of my client for no reason," Mr. James said. "This case and other cases at this prison have been under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI. We are obviously assisting them in any way we can in these investigations." "The Equal Justice Initiative has previously filed a class action lawsuit against the defendants in the case that we filed on July 25. That suit mentions what happened to my client," Mr. James said. The Alabama Department of Corrections, current commissioner Jefferson Dunn, Warden Carter Davenport, Karen Carter, Donald Lukima and Christopher Smith are named as defendants in this suit. "When an individual is sentenced to prison, they are sentenced to pay their debt to society. They are not sentenced to beatings by state employees and worse. We truly hope that this lawsuit will send a message that there must be change at this prison. The justice department clearly agrees with this," said Mr. James. ALERE: Faces Class Action in Massachusetts Over Blood Test ---------------------------------------------------------- Don Seiffert, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that adding to a lengthy list of problems faced by Waltham-based diagnostics firm Alere as it aims to complete its merger with Abbott came one more: A new class-action lawsuit over a home blood coagulation test that was recalled over concerns of its accuracy. The lawsuit is similar to one filed in California in June, according to John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- a partner in the Boston offices of Alabama-based law firm Bailey & Glasser LLP, which filed the latest class-action lawsuit against Alere on July 22 in federal court in Boston. Both address problems with the INRatio home blood test sold by Alere, used by patients who take blood thinners to determine the optimum size of dose needed for treatment. The INRatio test was the target of a Class 1 recall -- the most serious type -- in December 2014 because it was determined that the tests were giving inaccurate readings, which could lead to dosage levels that were either too high or too low, either of which could threaten the health of patients. According to Mr. Roddy, the recall consisted mostly of letters sent out to users of the INRatio test informing them of the action, but without any offer to compensate them for the test. "It's called a recall, but it's not like when your car is recalled and they give you a new one. These devices are still out there," he said. The two lead plaintiff's in the lawsuit -- who are identified only by their initials to protect their medical information -- did not get any notification from Alere, according to Mr. Roddy, who said the reasons are "somewhat of a mystery." The patients found out about the recall and contacted the company, but according to the lawsuit, "Alere has refused to refund the cost of its INRatio System to them, or to any purchaser." Roddy said the company has 30 days to respond to the demand letter, and unless they agree to refund those who purchased the test, the suit will move forward. He said at some point in the future, the suit could be combined with the similar one in California. Mr. Roddy said it's not known how many INRatio tests were sold, and therefore it's difficult to say how much money Alere could owe if it refunded all users. Separate from the class action suits are several other lawsuits from patients who have had "bad outcomes" believed to have been caused by the inaccurate test, said Mr. Roddy. The legal challenges come almost six months after Illinois drugmaker Abbott agreed to buy Alere for $5.8 billion, about 50 percent higher than its market value prior to the news. Soon after the deal was announced, however, Alere disclosed a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the INRatio test, and also said it wouldn't file its annual report by a federal deadline due to an internal analysis of revenue reported stretching back to 2013. Alere has yet to file its financial statements. Abbott reportedly tried to back out of the deal earlier this year, but Alere refused the offer. In April, comments by Abbott CEO Miles White on a conference call were interpreted as a sign that he's till not happy about the merger agreement. AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AM Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-16-552324, was removed from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04316-MEJ to the proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Maria-Elena James. AM Retail operates retail stores in the United States. Its stores offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion accessories, such as handbags. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq. Sedgwick LLP 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2834 Telephone: (415) 781 7900 Facsimile: (415) 781 2635 E-mail: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com AMAZING SIDING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Winston Perry, Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Amazing Siding Corporation d/b/a Renewal by Andersen of Houston, Robert W. Birner, Case No. 4:16-cv-02195 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of selling and installing windows and doors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. Alecia D. Best, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P. 9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com AB@Tranlawllp.com ANZ BANK: Awaits Ruling on Critical Bank Fees Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that the High Court was set to rule on July 27 on the critical bank fees class action, which has clear implications for all the major banks as well as utility and other companies charging late fees. Backed by litigation funder IMF Bentham and argued by law firm Maurice Blackburn, a test case was launched against ANZ Bank in the Federal Court almost six years ago. Judge Michelle Gordon, who has since joined the High Court, found that late payment fees could potentially be regarded as unlawful penalties. She ruled against the plaintiff, however, on four other categories of charges, including over-limit fees on credit cards, as well as honor, dishonor and non-payment fees on deposit accounts. Undeterred, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which overturned 150 years of legal history by clarifying that bank fees could be construed as penalties. The case was then referred back to the Federal Court, where Justice Gordon ruled in favor of the plaintiff on credit-card late payment fees, while backing ANZ on the four other fee categories. On appeal, the Full Court said Justice Gordon had the right legal principles in mind when determining whether a fee was a penalty, but wasn't even close when it came to calculating the bank's costs for processing a late payment fee. The judge found that fees of up to $35 were "extravagant and unconscionable" as costs were sometimes as low as 50c. The Full Court, on the other hand, said costs had to be examined on a forward-looking basis. Allowance had to be made for things like provisioning and the cost of holding additional regulatory capital if the customer's risk rating deteriorated. The judges said in some cases ANZ's costs could actually be higher than the fee. A long list of considerations on whether ANZ had acted unconscionably all went in the bank's favor. There was no dishonesty, trickery or sharp practice, the fees were fully and not unfairly disclosed, they could be avoided, there was no victimization or taking advantage of the plaintiffs, and there was no lack of good faith by ANZ. Both sides have spent in the tens of millions of dollars on legal costs. Meanwhile, Financial Stability Board chair Mark Carney's self- congratulatory letter to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors will be hard to stomach for some bank directors and executives. In a clear reference to the 2007-08 financial crisis, Carney says two recent spikes in volatility have been notable for the way they were dampened and not amplified by the financial system. As the system's chief custodian, it's no surprise that the FSB chief and Bank of England governor attributes this to the fine work of his own institution. "This resilience in the face of stress demonstrates the enduring benefits of the G20 reforms," Carney says. He goes on to cite the vastly improved capital buffers for large institutions, and stronger liquidity profiles that enable banks to continue lending through stressed conditions. As a result, financial markets were more robust to shocks, with credible stress tests also proving their worth. Carney's backslapping, which kicks off his six-page letter, is confirmation of the sharp divide between regulators and some institutions over the impact of post-crisis reforms. Rather than congratulating themselves for shock-proofing the financial system, there is a widespread view that regulators like Carney should accept they have created a new risk -- a lack of market liquidity that has exacerbated volatility. Sure, the potential for bank failures has been mitigated. However, this has partly been achieved by regulators forcing banks to dial down their appetite for risk. The problem is that once banks and other institutions withdraw from markets, volatility gets magnified. It leads to the kind of wild gyrations and losses associated with Britain's vote in June to leave the European Union, or the slower growth outlook for some G20 countries that emerged earlier this year. In a sense, Carney's letter is a response to the naysayers' view that nothing much has changed since the crisis. He hits back, lauding the increased resilience of the financial system as confirmation that the G20 is "on the right track". But if banks are indeed safer, maybe all that's happened is that risk has migrated somewhere else in the system. ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT: Certification in "Darden" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan O. Hickey denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled RICKY DARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT, INC., d/b/a Southwest Arkansas Development Council, Case No. 4:16-cv-04023-SOH (W.D. Ark.). "The Court finds that the motion is ripe for the Court's consideration. On August 3, 2016, the Court entered an order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law class claims in this case" Judge Hickey. "The state law class claims are the only class claims alleged in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Certification of these claims is DENIED AS MOOT," Judge Hickey added. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=os1eBNiU ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irina Love f/k/a Irina Kislitsina, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Association For Services For The Aged, Inc., Jasa Corporation d/b/a Jasacare, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv-04095 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants operate in the home healthcare industry in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sass on, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Y. Satter, writing for Benefits Pro, reports that a settlement in the class action suit against New York City-bsaed cosmetics company Avon Products Inc. has been given preliminary approval in federal court after participants in the company's retirement plans sued over the stock's drop in price. Plaintiffs in the case said that purchases of Avon stock for the company's retirement plans should have been frozen while Avon was being investigated for foreign corruption practices. They filed suit in early 2015 after alleging that the company's fiduciaries breached fiduciary duty by continuing to purchase Avon stock for the plans. In December of 2014, Avon agreed to pay $67 million to settle a civil probe by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and another $68 million to settle criminal claims brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. The company's Chinese subsidiary allegedly violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in making $8 million in payments to officials overseeing direct selling regulations in that country. The bribes were made between 2004 and 2008, as Avon sought access to the new market. At the time of the suit's filing, Avon's stock price was trading below $9. It had been punished over the last five years; in October 2010, it traded at around $35. Participants in the plan at any time from July 31, 2006, through Feb. 29, 2016, or a beneficiary of those participants, whose plan account included investment in the Avon Stock Fund are members of the settlement class. A notice to participants said that a qualified settlement fund consisting of $6.25 million in cash is being established, and that class counsel "believes that the Qualified Settlement Fund will allow for tax-free distribution to retirement accounts of members of the Class." The court will approve a plan of allocation of the award, and the estimated amount of the net settlement fund is $4,345,000. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 11 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1106 of Judge Lorna G. Schofield, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, N.Y. 10007. BALTIMORE, MD: Bid to File Amended Complaint in "Cherry" Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ROBERT F. CHERRY, JR., et al. Plaintiffs v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. MJG-10-1447 (D. Md), Judge Marvin J. Garbis denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The judge also denied as moot the defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City's motion to abstain. In 1962, Baltimore City enacted the Fire and Police Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore (the "Plan"), which provides defined benefits to its members and beneficiaries. In 2010, the City enacted Ordinance 10-306, that unilaterally modified the provisions of the Plan in several respects, effective July 1, 2010. The plaintiffs filed the First Amended and Restated Class Action Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief asserting state-law contract claims and federal claims under the Contract and Takings clauses of the United States Constitution. The Court held that the City had violated Constitutional rights of certain union members in violation of the Contract Clause. By agreement of the parties, the Court dismissed the Takings Clause claim as moot, dismissed the state-law contract claims without prejudice, and entered a final judgment subject to appeal. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Contract Clause rights had not been impaired because the plaintiffs retained a state-law remedy for breach of contract and that the Takings Clause Claim was no longer moot. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. The plaintiffs sought to refile the state-law contract claims in federal court in the proffered Second Amended Complaint. The defendants sought to have the Court deny the motion or, alternatively, to abstain from deciding the state-law contract claims. Judge Garbis held that the court shall exercise its discretion to decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction of the state-law claims. The Court will, however, retain jurisdiction of the federal claims, but shall stay proceedings thereon pending the resolution of the related state-law claims. A full-text copy of Judge Garbis' July 22, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/sTbTcF from Leagle.com. Robert F. Cherry, Jr., Robert J. Sledgeski, John Lewandowski, Charles Williams, Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #3, Inc., Baltimore City Firefighters' IAFF, Local 734, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles O Monk, II -- cmonk@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP, Devin John Doolan, Jr -- ddoolan@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP, Geoffrey M Gamble -- ggamble@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP, Nicholas J Nastasi, Jr -- nnastasi@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP & Paul Monroe Heylman -- pheylman@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP. Baltimore Fire Officers Union, Local 964, International Association of Fire Fighters, Petitioner, represented by James E Carbine, James E Carbine, P.C. & Robert D Klausner -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner and Kaufman PA. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, Defendant, represented by James P Ulwick -- julwick@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA, Jean Evelyn Lewis -- jlewis@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA & Matthew W Nayden, Baltimore City Law Department. Board of Trustees of the Fire and Police Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore, Defendant, represented by Christine C Carey -- cccarey@venable.com -- Venable LLP & James A Dunbar -- jadunbar@venable.com -- Venable LLP. Edward J. Gallagher, Defendant, represented by James P Ulwick, Kramon and Graham PA, Jean Evelyn Lewis, Kramon and Graham PA, Kevin Francis Arthur, Kramon and Graham PA & Matthew W Nayden, Baltimore City Law Department. BIOGEN INC: GBR Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit to 1st Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GBR Group, Ltd., one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled In re: Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-13189-FDS (D. Mass.), appealed the dismissal of the litigation. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation/GBR GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant; NICOLE TEHRANI, Plaintiff v. BIOGEN, INC.; GEORGE A. SCANGOS; PAUL J. CLANCY; STUART A. KINGSLEY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-1976, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 15, 2016, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the litigation. The putative class action involved alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiff GBR Group, Ltd. has brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, against biopharmaceutical company Biogen Inc. and three Biogen executives. The Plaintiffs contend that class members were harmed when they purchased Biogen's common stock at prices that were artificially inflated by the Company's materially misleading statements and omissions about Tecfidera, its leading multiple sclerosis drug. In his Memorandum and Order dated June 23, 2016 available at https://is.gd/CU3N7H from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor IV held that plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendants made those statements with a "conscious intent to defraud or 'a high degree of recklessness.'" Plaintiff-Appellant GBR Group, Ltd., is represented by: Angelina Nguyen, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: anguyen@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com jgardner@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com - and - Garrett J. Bradley, Esq. Andrea Marino Landry, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 100 Summer Street, 30th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 Facsimile: (617) 720-2445 E-mail: gbradley@tenlaw.com alandry@tenlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yitzchak E. Soloveichik, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com soloveichik@bgandg.com Plaintiff Nicole Tehrani is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com Defendants-Appellees Biogen, Inc., George A. Scangos, Paul J. Clancy and Stuart A. Kingsley are represented by: James R. Carroll, Esq. Michael S. Hines, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 573-4800 Facsimile: (617) 573-4822 E-mail: James.Carroll@skadden.com Michael.Hines@skadden.com Movant Biogen Investor Group is represented by: Eugene R. Richard, Esq. HURWITZ, RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP One Boston Place, Suite 3620 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 720-7870 Facsimile: (617) 720-7877 E-mail: generichard@hrsllp.com Movant Chillar Family Trust is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com Movant The City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust is represented by: Alan L. Kovacs, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS 257 Dedham Street Newton, MA 02461 Telephone: (617) 964-1177 Facsimile: (617) 332-1223 E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com Movant Robert L. Myer is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com BLUE FLAME: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- India T. Lloyd, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Blue Flame Lounge, Inc., and Jacquelyn White, Case No. 1:16-cv-02664-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an adult entertainment nightclub located at 1097 Harwell Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com BREATHLESS MEN'S: Judge Tosses Dancer's FLSA Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a lawsuit claiming that a strip club wrongly classified a dancer as an independent contractor has been tossed out by a federal judge in Newark. Alissa Moon waived her litigation rights when she signed an employment contract containing an arbitration agreement, U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton ruled July 29 when she granted summary judgment to Breathless Men's Club, the Rahway establishment where Moon worked. The plaintiff's claims that she was misclassified as an independent contractor are directly in conflict with the agreement's provisions, which state that she is a contractor and not an employee, Judge Wigenton ruled. Ms. Moon brought a collective action against Breathless for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law. She claimed the club violated the laws by failing to pay dancers any wages, let alone the applicable minimum wage, failing to pay an overtime premium for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, requiring dancers to pay a fee for the chance to work a shift, and requiring dancers to pay for their own costumes. Dancers at the club are not paid by management, but receive all their compensation in tips. They pay a "house fee" of $30 per shift on Wednesday through Saturday and $20 on other nights of the week, according to court documents. Ms. Moon's complaint cited nearly two dozen cases from around the country where federal courts found exotic dancers were wrongly categorized as independent contractors. She cited a long list of rules imposed on dancers at Breathless, such as the $30 fee to management to work a shift, required tips of $10 per shift to the disc jockey and $5 for the "house mom," and a requirement that they pay for their own costumes, including jerseys during football games and red and green outfits during the Christmas season. The suit was brought on behalf of all persons who currently work as dancers for Breathless, along with those who worked there as dancers for the three years before the suit was filed. The plaintiff claimed the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion and because its terms were one-sided, Judge Wigenton noted. In particular, Judge Wigenton said, the plaintiff cited her waivers of the right to litigate in a judicial forum and to proceed on a class or collective action basis. "However, a plain reading of the arbitration provision shows that the parties mutually waived their litigation rights; plaintiff did not waive any of these rights unilaterally. As a result, even if this court were to consider the agreement a contract of adhesion, there is no genuine dispute as to whether the arbitration provision is unconscionable," Judge Wigenton said. Plaintiff lawyer Jeremy Abay, of Sacks Weston Millstein Diamond in Philadelphia, said he was considering an appeal because the judge did not reference two of the cases he cited in his pleadings. He added that, if the case proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator would have to be paid to resolve issues that could have been decided by a judge for no cost. Marc Gross -- mgross@greenbaumlaw.com -- of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Roseland, representing the club, did not return a call about the case. BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Bowden" Suit in Northern District Alabama -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Bright House Networks LLC. The case is captioned Rebecca Bowden, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bright House Networks LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01237-JHE (N.D. Ala., July 29, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John H England, III. Bright House owns and operates cable systems that provide video, high-speed data, home security, and automation and voice services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com BUMBLE BEE: DOJ to Focus on Most Culpable Execs in Antitrust Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Seaman, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that a plethora of executives are named in amended civil lawsuits accusing the top three US tuna brands of market collusion, but the focus of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will be on the most culpable, said a lawyer involved in the civil lawsuits. The DOJ previously requested a pause on discovery in the civil lawsuits accusing Bumble Bee Foods, Thai Union Group-owned Tri- Union Seafoods, parent of Chicken of the Sea; and Dongwon Industries-backed Starkist of engaging in price fixing. Despite this, amended complaints were filed in late May in the civil lawsuits, expanding on the allegations contained in the lawsuits last year. In one of the lawsuits, in the "track" for complaints from retailers and wholesalers who have opted to be outside a class action, it is alleged top executives from Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea and Starkist were involved. In the amended complaint, Chris Lischewski, CEO of Bumble Bee from 1999 to the present day; Don Binotto, Starkist CEO from the 1990s through November 2010; John Signorino, Chicken of the Sea CEO from January 2005 to October 2007; and Shue Wing Chan, Signorino's successor, are all named. In another of the amended complaints, Andrew Choe, CEO of Starkist, is also named. None of the executives named are defendants in the civil suits, however, and the lawyers on the civil side are in the dark as to what the DOJ intended to do. "DOJ does not tell civil litigants what its intentions are with respect to charging any person or entity with violating antitrust laws," Christopher Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- of law firm Hausfeld, which is overseeing the class action track for direct buyers, such as Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, told Undercurrent News. Lebsock, however, was able to give a general idea of how the DOJ process works. "Company executives are not immune from prosecution. However, DOJ often limits prosecutions to the executives who are most culpable and in control," he said. He also gave a sense of what would happen next, if the DOJ does indeed decide to proceed with actions against individuals or companies. "Generally, DOJ would advise a target that it intends to seek indictment. The target then needs to decide whether he/she/it is willing to enter a guilty plea or fight the indictment," he said. "If the latter course is decided, then once the indictment is issued, the target, now a formal criminal defendant, would have all procedural and substantive defenses available to him/her. Basically, there would be pretrial efforts to have the charges dismissed, then discovery, and trial. In the US, there must be a unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Mr. Lebsock said. A trial would take place before a jury, unless the government and the defendant waive the jury, he said. "The jury would hear evidence and decide whether the target participated in a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt." Speaking to Undercurrent in September last year, Andre Barlow -- abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com -- a partner with the Washington. D.C.- based law firm Doyle Barlow and Mazard, said US regulators have also shown a willingness to go after firms that collude. "The antitrust division has been real aggressive and people have been put in jail," he toldUndercurrent. According to DOJ statistics, in 2014, 10 people were sent to prison as a result of criminal antitrust probes and US officials collected $1.4bn in criminal fines. Over the past five years, judges have handed out jail terms that are an average of 25 months long. The new information behind the more detailed complaints came from outside of formal discovery, said Mr. Lebsock. In addition, Tri Marine has been removed as a defendant. "The pause on discovery is still in place. The additional allegations set forth in the amended complaints are based on the plaintiffs' continuing investigation," he said. Grand jury convened Although what exactly is going on with the DOJ probe is not clear, the class action lawsuit from the direct buyers stated the San Francisco office of the antitrust division of the DOJ has confirmed it is conducting an investigation into anticompetitive practices in the packaged seafood sector in the US. The DOJ has convened a grand jury in the northern district of California. In its motion to intervene in the civil litigation, DOJ stated: "Both the civil and criminal cases pertain to allegations of collusive conduct among packaged seafood manufacturers" in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint for the direct buyers' section of the class action, which Mr. Lebsock's firm Hausfeld are representing, indicates the DOJ likely has an amnesty applicant. "Typically, the DOJ gets documents and other information from an amnesty applicant, and then goes to the other companies. This can result in guilty pleas if the DOJ believes that there is enough evidence to justify a prosecution," said Mr. Lebsock. "When deciding on the level of a fine, the DOJ will look at how culpable was a company, how co-operative they were and also how solvent the company is." In one of the civil lawsuits filed last year, Starkist was named as being the likely amnesty applicant. Then, latter lawsuits stated it is likely to be Chicken of the Sea. The amended complaints, however, hedge their bets somewhat. They all state that Thai Union, the owner of Chicken of the Sea, and Bumble Bee have publicly stated they have been subpoenaed by the DOJ, but Starkist has not. The class action from the direct buyer plaintiffs stated it has been publicly reported Chicken of the Sea is the amnesty applicant. CAREMARK PHC: Class of Call Center Reps Certified in "Woods" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Stephen R. Bough granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit titled TIMOTHY WOODS and KIMBERLY GIBSON, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION and CAREMARK, L.L.C., Case No. 4:14-cv-00583-SRB (W.D. Mo.). The Plaintiffs have moved the Court to conditionally certify a nationwide collective of all current and former Caremark/CVS non- exempt hourly Customer Care Representatives, who worked at any of Caremark's/CVS' call centers as a telephone-dedicated customer service employee in the past three years. The Plaintiffs alleged that the putative collective members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan implemented by the Defendants resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Bough directed the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs within 14 days of the Order the names, last known addresses, and electronic e-mail addresses of all former and current employees of Caremark/CVS who worked as non-exempt, hourly, telephone-dedicated customer service employees at any of Caremark/CVS call centers at any time up to three years prior to the agreed tolling date. Judge Bough also approved the same notice and dissemination plan previously ordered -- i.e. mailing notice as well as e-mailing reminder notice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t7bb38zA CARIDAD-BRONX: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Sanchez, and all other persons similarly situated v. Caridad-Bronx Restaurant Corp., and Orquidia Andreyev, Case No. 1:16-cv-05908 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1436 Williamsbridge Road, Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FRANCENE GREWE and LORI EBERHARD, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COBALT MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. C16-0577-JCC (W.D. Wash.), District Judge John C. Coughenour approved the parties' second motion for settlement approval after reviewing that the settlement of $650,000 reflects a fair and reasonable amount for the 427 putative class members. The case involves a collective action settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the case, the Court ruled that the supplemental brief of the Defendant's total equity is more than sufficient to cover the settlement amount. Francene Grewe, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Rowdy B. Meeks -- owdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC, pro hac vice. Cobalt Mortgage Inc, Defendant, represented by Taylor S. Ball - taylorball@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Ryan Coby Hess, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss -- sheehansullivanweiss@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. COMCAST CORP: Washington AG Sues Over Consumer Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the Washington Attorney General's Office has sued Philadelphia-based cable and internet titan Comcast Corp. in King County Superior Court, alleging 1.8 million violations of the state's Consumer Protection Act for misrepresentations, overcharges and improper practices. The lawsuit seeks refunds for approximately 500,000 Washington residents and more than $100 million in total damages, the office said. By claiming that its service protection plan was "comprehensive," despite the fact that it covers only a narrow scope of repairs, Comcast deceived roughly 500,000 Washington customers in the past five years into paying $4.99 per month for the plan, the office said in a complaint filed on Aug. 1. From January 2013 through July 2015, consumers paid $41.6 million in subscription fees -- allegedly due to deceptive advertising -- for a plan that helped them avoid just $5 million in service call charges, the complaint said. It also alleged the company deceives consumers through its customer guarantee that they won't be charged for a service visit resulting from an issue with Comcast's equipment or network, as well as CPA violations tied to the company's credit-screening tactics. Comcast said the service protection plan gives great value to consumers by covering more than 99 percent of their repair calls. The company also said it worked with the Attorney General's Office to address issues it raised, and improved its services based on the office's input. "Given that we were committed to continue working collaboratively with the Attorney General's Office, we're surprised and disappointed that they have instead chosen litigation," the company said in a statement. "We stand behind our products and services and will vigorously defend ourselves." Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the case represented a "classic example" of corporate deception for financial gain. "I won't allow Comcast to continue to put profits above customers -- and the law," he said in a statement. The Attorney General's Office said the complaint is the first of its kind, but noted that the service protection plan is used nationally and many of the improper practices are used in all of Comcast's markets. According to the lawsuit, Comcast's protection plan allows customers to avoid service call fees if they have a problem requiring an on-site visit from a technician. But the company "grossly misrepresented" the plan, the Attorney General's Office said. For example, despite telling consumers it would cover all "inside wiring," Comcast did not include wiring inside a home's walls under the plan's coverage, the lawsuit said. The plan often failed to cover any repairs at all because of limitations in its terms and conditions, the complaint said. "Deception formed the core of Comcast's service protection plan sales pitch," the complaint said. Through its customer guarantee, Comcast further deceived Washington residents, charging thousands of them for service calls resulting from an equipment or network problem, including issues with HDMI and component cables and cable cards, the complaint said. The company also gave its technicians a fix code that allowed them to add service charges to a visit that would not normally be charged. Comcast's credit-screening practices comprised a third facet of the lawsuit, which alleged that the company improperly obtained deposits from more than 6,000 Washington customers in violation of the CPA. New Comcast customers are subjected to a credit screening prior to obtaining service, unless they pay Comcast a deposit to avoid the screening -- and for those with low credit scores, the deposit is required. Comcast obtained deposits from individuals with high credit scores, "revealing that they improperly ran credit checks on customers who paid a deposit to avoid the credit check," the complaint said. In some cases, the Attorney General's Office alleged, Comcast ran credit checks on consumers more than a day after they paid the deposit to avoid the checks. The credit checks cost between $50 and $150, the complaint said, and they result in a hit on the consumer's credit profile that can damage their credit score. The complaint sought a decree that Comcast committed unfair and deceptive acts, and a permanent injunction against the alleged conduct. It also requested civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation of the state's unfair-competition law, as well as restitution of more than $73 million in service protection plan subscriber payments and at least $1 million in restitution for service calls that applied an improper resolution code. COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit styled Walter Williams, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify case as class action. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 4, 2016, the Court further: (1) granted Plaintiff's motion to set hearing and application for preliminary injunction; and (2) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to authorize expedited discovery. Preliminary injunction hearing, limited to Plaintiff's individual claim, is set for August 24, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. By August 22, 2016, each party shall file an exhibit list and a witness list for the preliminary injunction hearing. Both sides may take expedited discovery limited to the matter to be addressed at the preliminary injunction hearing. The Defendants may take the expedited deposition of the detained pro se plaintiff, Walter Williams. The Initial status hearing is set for September 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f1L333Ow COVISINT CORP: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP regarding the Covisint Corporation Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN J. DESROCHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. COVISINT CORPORATION, COMPUWARE CORPORATION, DAVID A. MCGUFFIE, ENRICO DIGIROLAMO, ROBERT C. PAUL, BERNARD M. GOLDSMITH, WILLIAM O. GRABE, RALPH J. SZYGENDA, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., and PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES LLC, Defendants. Civil Action No. 14 cv-03878-AKH CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF COVISINT CORPORATION ("COVISINT") PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO COVISINT'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 14, 2014 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on December 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14D, New York, New York, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for the principal amount of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) cash, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and the application of Plaintiffs for an award of time and expenses in connection with this Action should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED ANY COVISINT COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO COVISINT'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 14, 2014, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OF COVISINT COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Covisint Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30228, College Station, TX 77842-3228, or on the internet at www.covisintsecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail or online no later than October 19, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Action unless you timely and validly request to be excluded, in writing, by filling out the Request for Exclusion form attached to the Notice, received by November 28, 2016. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application must be received, not simply postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than December 1, 2016: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP FRANK J. JOHNSON 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Counsel for Defendants: SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP ROBERT E. ZIMET Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP ADAM S. HAKKI 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above. BY ORDER OF THE COURT DATED: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COWAY: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Purifiers -------------------------------------------------------- Lee Hyo-sik, writing for Korea Times, reports that nearly 300 people have filed a class-action lawsuit against Coway over its defective ice/water purifiers, demanding some 740 million won ($655,000) in compensation. Lawyer Nam Hee-woong submitted a petition to the Seoul Central District Court, on July 26, on behalf of 297 users of Coway's three nickel-contaminated water purifier models: CHPI-380N (CPI- 380N), CHPCI-430N and CPSI-370N. The lawsuit demands that Coway pay each plaintiff 2.5 million won: 1.5 million won in health examination fees and 1 million won in consolation money. Nam said Coway did not notify its customers of the defect even though it was aware that the purified water was contaminated by nickel, stressing that they suffered significant health damage. "We need to conduct a thorough health exam on those who drank nickel-tainted water to find out what physical damage they suffered," Nam said. "The court will side with the plaintiffs because they were traumatized by the fact that they were exposed to hazardous material for an extended period of time." The lawyer said another group of Coway customers, which could reach as many as 1,000, will file another class-action lawsuit against the company. Coway said it became aware of the lawsuit from media reports. "When we are formally notified by the court, we will deal with the matter in a faithful and responsible manner," a company spokesman said. On July 4, Coway issued a recall and apologized, saying that it would compensate all buyers of its three controversial water purifier models. It also said it would take full responsibility for health issues caused by the defect. However, the company has not been able to ease public outrage because it intentionally did not tell the users for more than a year about the defect. Instead of notifying consumers of its findings, Coway had repaired and exchanged the affected products through after-sales service. According to Nam, at the center of the lawsuit is whether users of the defective ice/water purifiers suffered any health damage from drinking nickel-contaminated water. The lawyer argues that even when consumed in small amounts, nickel can cause cancer, allergies, asthma and other illnesses. Currently, the Ministry of Environment and the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards are jointly conducting a study on nickel's harmful effects on humans. Coway said it has completed about 80 percent of the recall by collecting about 92,000 purifiers in question. It plans to take back the remaining 20 percent or 18,000 by the end of July. CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Sought in "Pietraszewski" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Pietraszewski moves the Court to certify the class described in the lawsuit styled PATRICIA PIETRASZEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC., d/b/a CHASE RECEIVABLES, Case No. 2:16-cv-01015-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks requests that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. Ms. Pietraszewski asserts that Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, Ms. Pietraszewski contends. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7zlhzDu6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: O'Connell Seeks Certification of Class in Wisc. --------------------------------------------------------------- James O'Connell moves the Court to certify the class described in the lawsuit titled JAMES O'CONNELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01016 (E.D. Wisc.). He further asks the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant him (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. Mr. O'Connell asserts that Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PTjJRnti The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com CT & TC: Faces "Wen" Suit in Eastern District New York ------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against CT & TC Corporation. The case is captioned Qing Cong Wen, Si Ning Yuan, Wen Jie Hu, Jin Long Li, Elva Lin, Zhen Run Situ, Cheung Ning Lai, and View H. Chung, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CT & TC Corporation, d/b/a Orient Odyssey; V & T Kitchen Corp., d/b/a The Orient Restaurant; Cheong Kan Tan; Vicky Tan; and Tong Hwa Chu, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04214 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2016). CT & TC operates the Orient Odyssey restaurant. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. CYTRX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on July 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who purchased CytRx Corporation ("CytRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CYTR) securities between November 18, 2014, and July 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CytRx investors have sixty days from the date of this notice to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their CytRx investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study; (2) that, as a result, nearly half of all patients would be censored (excluded) from the progression free survival evaluation; (3) that, in response, CytRx would likely conduct a second analysis; (4) that, as such, the results of the trial could be materially affected and/or approval of aldoxorubicin for STS could be delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about CytRx's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of CytRx during the Class Period you have sixty days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://glancylaw.com If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. DHL: November 4 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing -------------------------------------------------------- If You Purchased Freight Forwarding Services Providing domestic and international shipping, You Could Get Benefits from a $53.55 Million Settlement If you or your company used the services of certain freight forwarders, you may be entitled to a potentially significant cash payment from class action Settlements. Settlements have now been reached with the final two Defendants. Settlements were previously reached with 29 Defendants. The Settlements involve a lawsuit claiming that certain freight forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Germany, the U.K. and other parts of Europe. The Settling Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. Freight Forwarders provide transportation, or logistics services for shipments relating to the organization or transportation of items via air and ocean, which may include ancillary rail and truck services, both nationally and internationally, as well as related activities such as customs clearance, warehousing, and ground services. Who is Included You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class Member) if you: (1) Directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services; (2) from any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates; (3) from January 1, 2001 through January 4, 2011; (4) in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S. What Do the Settlements Provide? DHL and Hellmann will establish a $53,550,000 Settlement Fund. The amount of your benefits will be determined by the Plan of Allocation, which is posted on www.FreightForwardCase.com How to Get Benefits? You need to submit a Claim Form, online or by mail, by April 3, 2017 to get a payment from the Settlements. You can obtain a Claim Form by calling one of the numbers below or visiting the website. If you already submitted a Claim Form for the first or second round of Settlements, you do not need to file a new claim. You will automatically be paid from this third round of Settlements. Your Other Rights Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue DHL or Hellmann yourself, you must exclude yourself by September 20, 2016 from that Settlement. If you stay in a particular Settlement, you may object to it by September 20, 2016. The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you at no charge to you. You may hire your own lawyer at your own cost. The Court will hold a hearing on November 4, 2016 to consider whether to approve: (1) the Settlements, (2) a request for attorneys' fees up to 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, and reimbursement for litigation expenses; and (3) a request for Class Representative service awards of no more than $75,000 each. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing. This notice is only a summary. For detailed information: Call U.S. & CANADA: 1-877-276-7340 (Toll-Free) INTERNATIONAL: 1-503-520-4400 (Toll) or Visit www.FreightForwardCase.com DOONEY & BOURKE: Court Dismisses "Rael" False Discount Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MONICA RAEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOONEY & BOURKE, INC., a Connecticut corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 16cv0371 JM(DHB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted Dooney & Bourke, Inc.'s (D&B) motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended class action complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff was granted 14 days to file a second amended complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Miller's July 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/ykz6qy from Leagle.com. The case concerns allegations that the defendant D&B is engaged in false discount pricing by offering outlet store merchandise at purported discounts from fabricated "original" prices. Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, asserted causes of action for (1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws (UCL), California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Laws (FAL), California Business & Professions Code section 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.; (4) violation of the consumer protection laws on behalf of classes of states with similar laws; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. Monica Rael, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Courtney Casola -- bcasola@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP & Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles E. Loeser -- cloeser@cravath.com -- Cravath Swain & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, J. Wesley Earnhardt -- wearnhardt@cravath.com -- Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Sean Freund -- freundr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Robert J. Herrington, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Roger G. Brooks -- rgbrooks@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas J. McAndrew, Thomas J. McAndrew, Esq., Ltd., pro hac vice. EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed that on July 22, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Local 449") against Eaton Corporation plc ("Eaton" or the "Company") (NYSE:ETN), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation plc, No. 16-cv-5894 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Eaton between November 13, 2013 and July 28, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's unencumbered ability to divest its automobile-part manufacturing business. Eaton is an Ireland-based manufacturer of engineered products marketed to customers in the industrial, agricultural, construction, aerospace, and vehicle markets. For most of its 100 year history, Eaton primarily was a vehicle component manufacturer. Since 2008, however, the Company has been making strategic shifts away from its vehicle business, while growing its electrical component businesses. In 2012, the Company engaged in a merger (the "Merger") with the Irish-headquartered Cooper Industries plc. ("Cooper"), which reincorporated the Company in Ireland. Following the Merger, and during the Class Period, in response to questions from securities analysts about the effect of the Merger on the Company's ability to spin-off its business, Eaton executives falsely assured investors and the market of the continued feasibility of divesting the Company's automobile-part manufacturing business on a tax-free basis. This prospect was key to investors' and analysts' ability to value the Company. As a result, Eaton and its executives artificially inflated the price of Eaton stock. On July 29, 2014, Eaton Chief Executive Officer Alexander M. Cutler ("Cutler") finally informed investors that, contrary to the Company's prior assurances, Eaton could not feasibly divest its vehicle business until late 2017 due to tax-law restrictions related to the Merger with Cooper. Defendant Cutler further revealed that the Company had been "well aware" of these restrictions "all along." This disclosure caused a material decline in the price of Eaton stock. If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of Eaton during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than September 23, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com You can view a copy of the complaint online at: https://is.gd/FAiCWc Local 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, and Wilmington, DE. ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of those who purchased shares of EndoChoice Holdings, Inc. ("EndoChoice" or the "Company") pursuant and or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about June 5, 2016. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint alleges that the documents issued with the Initial Publice Offering (the "IPO") were materially misleading and/or omitted material facts. On June 5, 2015, EndoChoice launched its IPO of 6,350,000 shares priced at $15.00 per share of common stock. On November 5, 2015, EndoChoice revealed a drop in Fuse placements in the third quarter and announced it had joined a strategic partnership with De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. to provide new financing options for US EndoChoice customers. Following this news, EndoChoice stock dropped over 22%. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. To discuss this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/#!gi/de2saor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in EndoChoice, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Brittany Perkins, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Evolved, Inc., Skin F/X Inc., and Nicholas S. Wolak, Case No. 2:16-cv-00724-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in tanning, tattooing, piercing and jewelry sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jason C. Cox, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jcox@barkanmeizlish.com FACEBOOK INC: Insurers in Dispute Over Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry P. Schiffer, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that most significant insureds that provide services purchase both directors and officers liability insurance ("D&O") and errors and omissions insurance ("E&O"). When the services provided are that of a stock exchange, claims by investors against the exchange for wrongful acts concerning the listing of a security may implicate both types of coverage. In a recent case, a court construed the interplay between these coverages and the application of the professional services exclusion typically found in D&O policies. In Beazley Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-5119 (JSR), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90332 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2016), a coverage dispute arose between the insured's E&O carriers and its D&O carriers over who should contribute to the settlement of an investor class action over the initial public offering of Facebook on the NASDAQ. The E&O insurers advanced defense costs for the underlying various class actions and ultimately settled with the class action plaintiffs on the underlying allegations. The D&O insurers, however, disclaimed coverage based on the D&O policy's professional services exclusion. In the coverage/contribution litigation between the E&O and D&O carriers, the court, in an earlier decision, granted the E&O carriers partial summary judgment against the primary D&O carrier on the issue of defense costs. The issue in this decision concerned the applicability of the professional services exclusion in the D&O policy to the claims made in the underlying class action. The exclusion provided that "[t]he Insurer shall not be liable for that portion of Loss on account of any Claim: . . . by or on behalf of a customer or client of the Company, alleging, based upon, arising out of, or attributable to the rendering or failure to render professional services." As the court pointed out, neither customer or client nor professional services is defined. In finding in favor of the applicability of the exclusion, the court held that the underlying plaintiffs, retail investors in Facebook, were unambiguously customers or clients of the exchange. The court reached its conclusion by construing federal securities case law and the custom and usage of these terms in that context. The court also found that industry usage also reinforced and confirmed its conclusion. Thus, the court concluded that a reasonably intelligent person who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the industry would understand customers as that term is used in the professional services exclusion to unambiguously encompass retail investors. Finding no ambiguity, the court did not need to resort to extrinsic evidence. The court then went on to conclude that the underlying claims were alleging, based upon, arising out of, or were attributable to the rendering or failure to render professional services as a matter of law. The court used a "but for" analysis to reach this conclusion. But for the excluded conduct, could the claim otherwise succeed. The court found that "the federal securities claims would have failed but for NASDAQ's allegedly botched rending of professional services." The court concluded that because the professional services exclusion unambiguously applied, the court did not have to resort to construing the contract against the drafter and held that the D&O carriers had no duty to indemnify NASDAQ. Notably, however, the court did not relieve the primary D&O carrier of its responsibility for advancing defense costs based on the earlier holding and the broader duty to defend. FIRST NATIONAL: Court Partly Grants Attorney's Fees, Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL MUNGER, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 15-11276 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson granted in part the plaintiff's petitions for attorney's fees. The plaintiff, Michael Munger, filed a complaint on April 3, 2015, alleging in a single count violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), based on the allegedly deceptive communications in the defendants' dunning letter. The case was resolved initially when Munger accepted an offer of judgment, in which the defendants offered to pay $3,001, plus the "[p]laintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs." The parties have not been able to agree on an amount of those fees and costs, which led to the filing of three petitions for attorney fees separately filed by the five attorneys who appeared for Munger as counsel of record in this case. They sought fees and costs in excess of $106,000. They conceded that almost all of their billing is derived from or related to work done in contemplation of the class claims that never proceeded. Judge Lawson concluded that it is not reasonable to allow attorney's fees for work done on a claim that was never advanced because Munger accepted the offer of judgment. No class was certified, and there was no class recovery. Therefore, the judge held that the petitions for attorney's fees will be allowed only for fees incurred on the case absent the putative class claims, and denied in all other respects. Judge Lawson held that the plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to attorney's fees and costs totaling only $8,594.69. A full-text copy of Judge Lawson's July 25, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/3Cz4J7 from Leagle.com. Michael Munger, Plaintiff, represented by David Scott Parnell -- david@parellfirm.com -- The Parnell Firm, PLLC, Lynn H. Shecter, Roy, Shecter, and Vocht, P.C., Sean R. O'Mara, O'Mara Law Firm PC, William A. Roy, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & Michelle E. Vocht, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C.. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson, Olson Law Group, Matthew Philip Kostolnik -- matt.kostolnik@lawmoss.com -- Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association & Michael S. Poncin -- mike.poncin@lawmoss.com -- Moss & Barnett. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson, Olson Law Group & Michael S. Poncin, Moss & Barnett. FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a Los Angeles man has filed a class-action suit against a debt collector over allegations it used an autodialer to repeatedly call him despite his requests to stop. Jason Alan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Fiserv Inc. and Does 1-10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in March 2015, he sustained damages and charges for incoming calls from the defendants in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. The plaintiff holds Fiserv Inc. and Does 1-10 because the defendants allegedly contacted plaintiff several times using an automatic dialing system despite his requests to stop calling. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages for each and every violation, $1,500 in treble damages for each and every violation and any other relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E. George and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Beverly Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:16-cv-05479 FITBIT INC: Judge Sends Securities Actions Back to State Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston granted the Plaintiffs' motions to remand their securities class actions to state court finding that the intent of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) explicitly divested state courts of jurisdictions over class actions, and following the persuasiveness of previous authority showing a great majority of other judges in similar cases finds that remand is proper. The adjudged related cases are captioned, RAUL RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02890-SI (N.D. Calif.) and ANA DA LUZ, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03381-SI, (N.D. Calif.). The "Rivera" case is sent back to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, while the "Da Luz" case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs' request for awards of attorneys' fees is denied. District courts have ample discretion when deciding whether to award attorneys' fees in an order to remand, the Court said. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/UQ1cCZfrom Leagle.com. Raul Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, George Carlos Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & Jay Nabil Razzouk -- jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP. Fitbit, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Ryan M. Keats -- ryan.keats@aporter.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Anna Erickson White -- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Jonathan Rosenberg - jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, William Sushon -- wsushon@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice. FONTEM US: Sept. 12 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2015), a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 12, 2016. In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York, and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action results from the consolidation of two actions - Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material information, or failed to contain required disclosures. On behalf of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive damages under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General Business Law Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq. Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, RAI tendered the defense of the now-consolidated Diek and Whitney actions to, and sought indemnification for those actions from, ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations and conditions of the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, ITG agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliates against losses arising from the operation of the blu brand e-cigarette business. On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the outcome of the appeals in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, that are pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay does not apply to finalizing the pleadings and related briefing. On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is underway, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for September 12, 2016. FOREMOST INSURANCE: Court Wants Class Certification Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan O. Hickey granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to withdraw a previously filed motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling, in the lawsuit styled DAVID BRADEN and DALE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-04114-SOH (W.D. Ark.). The Court finds that Plaintiffs should be permitted to withdraw their previously filed Motion for Class Certification and be permitted to refile the Class Certification Motion after class certification discovery has been conducted. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=un2yAvcR FRESNO, CA: Residents Face Rusty Water Problems ----------------------------------------------- Gene Haagenson, writing for KFSN, reports that some residents have already paid to have their plumbing re-done. While others are waiting for the city to figure out what's wrong. So far, residents of a few hundred Fresno homes have expressed concerns about rust colored water to the city. A similar problem afflicted 5,000 homes in Santa Clarita and resulted in a lot of work for southern California plumbers. "We'd come up, just the kids would say can I have something to drink and you'd go to pour and instead of being nice and clear it was brown," Dorothy Belli of Santa Clarita said. "It was horrible." The 2,151 residents of the neighborhood in Santa Clarita say they can relate to the water problems in northeast Fresno. Just 20 years ago, they started having rusty, discolored water coming out of their faucets and discovered they had corroded and leaking pipes. Nobody listened to their complaints until they went to court. "It was an extreme hassle," resident John Hunsinger said. "We had to initiate a class action lawsuit against the developer in order to recover our costs of repairing and replacing the pipe, it wasn't something we wished to go through and hopefully won't go through again." The finally got a settlement of more than $40 million against a Korean pipe manufacturer, developers and contractors who built their neighborhood. "Yeah, real pain you expect, especially from the builder who has a reputation out here you would expect to get something top quality," resident Mark Link said. The money from that settlement went to replace the plumbing in 5,000 homes but it may be too late for that kind of action in Fresno. "You are time barred because of the fact the lawsuit was not filed within 10 years of the time the house was completed," attorney Russell Cook said. Mr. Cook handles construction cases in Fresno. He says the statute of limitations on building defects is 10 years whether the homeowner was aware of the problem or not. Most of the homes affected in Fresno were built in the late 80's and early 90's. The rusty water problems started in 2004 with the opening of the city's surface water treatment plant. "That would be their argument that the PH of the water caused the pipe to rust and fail. But that still is governed by the 10-year statute of limitations," he explained. The city has blamed Korean pipe manufacturer DongBu, the same company that had defective pipes in Santa Clarita. But some affected Fresno residents think the city may have failed to properly treat it's water, causing the corrosion. The city is investigating and has not accepted responsibility. GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Sanchez" Suit Sent to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ABEL SANCHEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-50 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the motion filed by the defendants to compel arbitration. Judge Ramos ordered the parties to submit their claims to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the defendants' plan, termed "Solutions: An Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure." A full-text copy of Judge Ramos' July 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/xTtn5K from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs filed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit as a collective action for unpaid overtime wages against General Electric Company, GE Oil & Gas, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Logging Services, Inc., and GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, LP (jointly GE) on February 15, 2016. The plaintiffs also asserted a class action for declaratory judgment on behalf of all workers who had signed certain agreements releasing GE from FLSA claims, seeking to render those agreements unenforceable. Abel Sanchez, Lamont Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by Austin W. Anderson, Anderson2X, PLLC, James Rick Holstein, Phipps Anderson Deacon, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Anderson2X, PLLC, Rose Vela, Rose Vela Attorney at Law & William Clifton Alexander, Anderson2X, PLLC. Derrick Corpus, Plaintiff, represented by William Clifton Alexander, Anderson2X, PLLC, Austin W. Anderson, Anderson2X, PLLC, James Rick Holstein, Phipps Anderson Deacon, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Anderson2X, PLLC & Rose Vela, Rose Vela Attorney at Law. General Electric Company, GE Oil & Gas, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Logging Services, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, LP, Defendants, represented by Carolyn A. Russell -- carolyn.russell@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al & Stephen Jose Quezada -- stephen.quezada@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. GROUPON INC: Appeal Filed From W.D.N.C. Ruling in "Keena" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Erin Keena filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled ERIN KEENA, for herself and all others similarly situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-00520-GCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte. The appellate case is captioned as ERIN KEENA, for herself and all others similarly situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 16-1873, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14, 2016, Judge Graham C. Mullen granted Groupon Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration of the Case. The Case is stayed pending the arbitrator's decision. A full-text copy of Judge Mullen's June 21, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/26SNZf from Leagle.com. Groupon is a Web-based company that partners with retail businesses and offers the businesses' products and services for a discounted price if purchased from Groupon's Web site. Erin Keena filed a suit on October 29, 2015, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraudulent inducement, and negligence. GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify "Vasquez" Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. G. Michael Harvey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an opt-in collective action under the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act in the lawsuit styled LUIS ALEXANDER VASQUEZ v. GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02106-GMH (D.D.C.). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UMVaCi9v GULF COAST: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in "Francois" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and court authorized notice in the lawsuit titled ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE ORDEUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla.). Estime Francois and Renette Ordeus allege that they were formerly employed by the Defendant as taxicab drivers and that the Defendant misclassified them (and all other taxicab drivers) as independent contractors. As a result, the Plaintiffs contend that due to the Defendant's willful misclassification of them as independent contractors, the Defendant did not pay taxicab drivers any wages at all, in violation of the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify a putative class of drivers that they describe as: All persons employed by [Defendant] as taxicab drivers in Florida from the three years preceding the filing of th[e] complaint through the date of final judgment in this action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6oeQ2g6 GUTHY-RENKER: FDA Investigates Hair Product-Related Complaints -------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Jacewicz, writing for NPR, reports that hair products aren't at the top of most people's health worry list, but the Food and Drug Administration is investigating a surprisingly high number of reports of problems after people used a particular cleansing conditioner. As of July 7, the FDA had received 127 complaints of "hair loss, hair breakage, balding, itching, and rash" after people used Wen by Chaz Dean cleansing conditioner products -- more reports than the agency has ever received for a cosmetic hair product. "This kind of report is very rare," says Paradi Mirmirani, a dermatologist in Vallejo, Calif. "For the most part, shampoo products out there are all very safe." The agency's safety alert says it has not determined a possible cause for the problems reported. Late last year, mediation began for a class-action lawsuit in California against Guthy-Renker, the company that markets and manufactures Wen. The FDA doesn't approve cosmetics before they go on the market, though it does set upper limits for bacteria in cosmetics and hygiene products. Instead, says Linda Katz, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, the agency monitors consumer complaints for many factors to decide whether to investigate a product. In this case, the sheer number of complaints played a role in the decision. The agency says it is investigating more than 21,000 complaints reported to Chaz Dean Inc. and Guthy-Renker. (Gianna Cesa, a PR representative for Chaz Dean, says the company did not receive this number of complaints.) Ms. Katz says she can't discuss any working hypotheses associated with the investigation, though she did say investigators have no reason to believe the product was contaminated with something foreign, like microbes. For now, the FDA is still gathering information. Officials will look at the product's quality testing and whether there have been any changes to how the product is made. In an email, a spokesman for Chaz Dean said the company stands behind its products and that "the brand has consistently cooperated with the FDA and will continue to do so." Dermatologists say hair care products can cause these sorts of symptoms. One common reason is allergy. "There are thousands of ingredients that are in personal hair products," says Bruce Brod, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania. "While most people in the population won't react to them, there's a small subpopulation that will." Common allergy triggers include surfactants, the ingredients in shampoos and conditioners that make them sudsy, as well as preservatives that increase shelf life and chemicals used to create fragrances. These allergic reactions can occur regardless of whether a product is "all natural," says Dr. Mirmirani. "Lots of plants give people a reaction as well," she says, citing poison oak as an example. And because allergic reactions can take a while to occur, people may not immediately realize a hair product is causing issues. But there are also causes of scalp problems that have nothing to do with cosmetics, says Nicole Rogers, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Tulane Medical School. For example, she says, male-pattern or female-pattern baldness are both common causes of hair loss. Or a patient could suffer from alopecia areata, a disease in which the immune system attacks hair follicles. She says she believes it's unlikely the consumers' complaints are tied to Wen. Stress, changes in diet and pregnancy can cause hair loss as well, says Anthony Rossi, a dermatologist who serves as a consultant to Chaz Dean's PR firm. That said, all the doctors told Shots that people with scalp problems should visit a dermatologist and discuss hair products, along with other possible factors. Doctors can do allergy tests on patients to analyze as many as 55 potential allergy triggers. It's important, says Mr. Brod, to look at all potential causes of symptoms, rather than looking at Internet chat rooms alone. "Often, there's a suggestive herd effect," he says. "If somebody says, 'I'm using something and it itches my scalp,' the person next to him will say, 'You know what? Me too.' " Ms. Katz of the FDA also urges people to visit doctors in addition to reporting complaints to the FDA. And if someone decides to switch from Wen to a different conditioner, Ms. Mirmirani says, "There's plenty more out there." HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: "Edwards" FDCA Suit Removed to Atlanta Div. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Handy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02619 (N.D. Ga., Dekalb Division, July 19, 2016), has been removed to the Atlanta Division on July 20, 2016. Plaintiff sues over violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Handy Technologies operates an online platform for individuals looking for household repair services. Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Rocco Pecora, Esq. Matthew Anderson Dooley O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Tel: (440) 930-4001 Email: apecora@omdplaw.com mdooley@omdplaw.com - and - Clifton Dorsen, Esq. James Marvin Feagle SKAAR AND FEAGLE 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Tel: (404) 373-1978 Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP - WOODSTOCK 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Tel: (770) 427-5600 Fax: (404) 601-1855 Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com Defendant is represented by: Leslie A. Dent, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC - ATL 3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30326-4803 Tel: (404) 233-0330 Fax: (404) 759-2354 Email: ldent@littler.com HHGREGG INC: Not Obligated to Pay Bonuses, Ind. Ct. App. Says ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Gregg Appliances, Inc., and HHGregg, Inc., Appellant-Defendant, v. Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellee-Plaintiff, No. 49A04-1509- PL-1434 (Ind. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial court's ruling and directed entry of summary judgment for HHGregg, Inc. ("Gregg"). Dwain Underwood and other senior managers at Gregg brought a class action after Gregg did not pay them bonuses based on HHGregg's 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). Gregg asserted its EBITDA was below the threshold level for payment of the bonuses, but its calculation of EBITDA excluded nearly 40 million dollars in life insurance proceeds it received after its executive chairman died. The trial court granted summary judgment for Underwood after determining a Total Rewards Statement (TRS) Gregg provided, indicating what level of EBITDA would result in bonuses, required the EBITDA to include the insurance proceeds. The appellate court, however, held that Gregg was not obligated to pay the bonuses. "As the parties could not have intended the EBITDA on which the TRS was based would include a one-time event in the form of insurance proceeds that did not reflect the company's performance, Gregg was entitled to summary judgment. We accordingly reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Gregg," the appellate court said. A full-text copy of the appellate court's July 22, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/bGOR7r from Leagle.com. Todd J. Kaiser -- todd.kaiser@ogletreedeakins.com -- Christopher C. Murray -- christopher.murray@ogletreedeakins.com -- Amanda Couture -- amanda.couture@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant. Eric S. Pavlack -- eric@pavlacklawfirm.com -- Colin E. Flora -- colin@pavlacklawfirm.com -- Pavlack Law, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee. HIGHLAND PARK, NJ: Williams Files Appeal in 3rd Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- LOUISE M. WILLIAMS and ELIE FEUERWERKER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF HIGHLAND PARK, the Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 16-3179 (3rd Cir., July 30, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No. 2-15-cv-06879 (D.N.J., March 28, 2016). Highland Park is a borough in Middlesex County, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs - Appellants are represented by: Vahbiz P. Karanjia, Esq. EPSTEIN OSTROVE 220 Davidson Avenue Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (732) 828 8600 - and - Elliot D. Ostrove, Esq. DAY PITNEY One Jefferson Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (732) 828 8600 The Defendant - Appellee is represented by: Donald A. Klein, Esq. WEINER LESNIAK 629 Parsippany Road P.O. Box 438 Parsippany, NJ 07054 HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Pension System Sues Over Lions Gate Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholder of STARZ, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS ALBRECHT, IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER, SUSAN LYNE, JEFF SAGANSKY, DAN SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT S. WIESENTHAL, LESLIE MALONE, THE TRACEY L. NEAL TRUST A, THE EVAN D. MALONE TRUST A, ROBERT R. BENNETT, DEBORAH J. BENNETT, HILLTOP INVESTMENTS, LLC, LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., AND ORION ARM ACQUISITION INC., the Defendants, Case No. 12584 (Del. Chancery Ct., July 21, 2016), was filed in connection with the merger between Starz and Lions Gate. Over the last 18 months, Malone has endeavored to combine Starz and Lions Gate. In February 2015, he swapped a portion of his Starz stock for 4.5% of Lions Gate's outstanding shares and received an irrevocable proxy entitling him to still vote the Starz shares he had given to Lions Gate. Then, in November 2015, two companies in which Malone holds significant voting power each purchased an additional 3.4% stake in Lions Gate. Finally, on June 30, 2016, Starz and Lions Gate announced they had reached an agreement whereby Lions Gate would acquire Starz for $4.4 billion in cash and stock. Malone allegedly structured the merger in such a way that Lions Gate will assume control over Starz (and pay Malone different and more valuable consideration than it will pay the Company's public stockholders), regardless of whether the Company's public stockholders approve the deal. Moreover, Malone has deterred potential alternative bidders from making a superior proposal through a side agreement with Lions Gate. Hilltop delivers investment banking and related financial services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Stuart M. Grant, Esq. John C. Kairis, Esq. Jeremy S. Cole, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com HOMERS TASTE: Faces "Zhu" Suit in Eastern District New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Homers Taste Restaurant Inc. The case is captioned ZHENG ZHU, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Homers Taste Restaurant Inc., Xin Yun Bao, Xiao Lin Fang, and JOHN or JANE DOES 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04229 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2016). Homers Taste is a restaurant located at College Point Blvd, Flushing, New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. IACOBONI SITE: "Stump" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY C. STUMP, JR. 5534 Edwin Court, White Marsh, Maryland 21162, the Plaintiff, v. IACOBONI SITE SPECIALISTS, INC., 9301 Philadelphia Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21237; and THOMAS J. IACOBONI, 15635 Yeoho Road, Sparks, Maryland 21152, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02647-ELH (D. Md., July 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff has not received compensation from the Defendants reflecting the prescribed overtime wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff for the overtime wages he was owed. Iacoboni Site is a company that is engaged in the business of site work including demolition, sediment control, grading, paving, and utilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244 7005 Facsimile: (410) 244 8454 INNOVATIVE FACILITY: "Ocaranza" Suit Seeks OT, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Ocaranza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Innovative Facility Services, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC627812 (Cal. Super., June 21, 2016), seeks unpaid premium wages for failure to provide meal periods, unpaid wages for off-the-clock hours worked, corresponding overtime wages, indemnification for expenditures and losses incurred for business-related expenses, restitutions of moneys wrongfully withheld, waiting time penalties, prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other relief under California Labor Laws. Defendants are in the business of providing janitorial services to department stores and other commercial facilities in California, where Defendant worked as a janitor. Plaintiffs are represented by: Justian Jusuf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (714)274-9815 Fax: (714)362-3148 - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: (818)609-0807 Fax: (818)609-0892 IOWA: Settles Apartments Downtown Tenants' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Schmidt, writing for The Gazette, reports a settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit that pitted about 14,000 former tenants against Iowa City's largest landlord company. District Court Judge Chad Kepros earlier in July ordered the settlement in the five-year-old class-action lawsuit. With the settlement, tenants who rented with Apartments Downtown and Apartments Near Campus -- which are operated by the same company -- from 2010 through 2014 will receive a $65 payment for each year of their tenancy. The dollar figure is tied directly to a mandatory carpet-cleaning charge that was present in the company's lease for all tenants. Such a mandatory charge was deemed illegal. Christopher Warnock, lawyer with the Iowa Tenants Project, estimated the class-action case will amount to more than $1 million. Mr. Warnock said the deadline to submit claims in the class action suit is November 15. Mr. Warnock said the settlement includes a court order so an Iowa Tenants Project lawyer would handle any future tenant complaints against Apartments Downtown. That lawyer would represent the tenants to ensure fairness while providing more accountability from the landlord, he said. "While the class action settlement is great, I am even more excited about the complaint process," Mr. Warnock said in a July 25 news release. "We see this as a new partnership between landlords and tenants." The Iowa Tenant Project first began its case against Apartments Downtown about five years ago, with a few former tenants alleging that leases they signed with the rental provider contained prohibited provisions, carpet-cleaning fees, responsibility for repairs and maintenance and liquidated damages -- all of which violated the Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act, according to court documents. Last summer, a Johnson County District Judge ruled that Apartments Downtown had violated Iowa Code. Apartments Downtown appealed the ruling last August. JEUNESSE LLC: Faces "Aboltin" Suit in Ariz. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Jeunesse LLC. The case is captioned James J Aboltin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jeunesse LLC also known as Jeunesse Global Incorporated, a Florida limited liability company; Wendy R Lewis, an individual, Ogale Ray, named as Ogale "Randy" Ray, an individual; Scott A Lewis, an individual; Kim Hui, an individual; Jason Caramanis, an individual; Alex Morton, an individual; and Unknown Parties named as John and Jane Does 1-100, individual natural persons, and ABC Corporations, Companies and/or Partnerships 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-02574-ESW (D. Ariz., July 30, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Eileen S Willett. Jeunesse develops and sells skincare products and supplements worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Geoffrey Bray, Esq. David Nunzio Ferrucci, Esq. Jonathan Scott Batchelor, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285 5000 Facsimile: (602) 285 5100 E-mail: dbray@dickinsonwright.com dferrucci@dickinsonwright.com jbatchelor@dickinsonwright.com KANSAS: Mosier Appeals Ruling in Planned Parenthood Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Defendant SUSAN MOSIER, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment in her official capacity, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Mosier, Case No. 2:16-CV-02284-JAR-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Kansas City. The appellate case is titled Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Mosier, Case No. 16-3249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 18, 2016, Judge Julie A. Robinson granted the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, thus restraining Susan Mosier, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), her employees, agents, and successors in office from terminating the Medicaid provider agreements of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (PPKM) and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri (PPSLR). A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's July 5, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/5LvF8A from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs PPKM, PPSLR, the individual providers, and three Jane Doe patients filed the action challenging the KDHE's decision to terminate as Medicaid providers PPKM, PPSLR, and 11 current and former individual providers who are, or were in the past, employees of PPKM and PPSLR. The challenge was brought under the Medicaid Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief from the termination decisions. On June 13, 2016, the KDHE reconsidered and reversed its decision to terminate the 11 individual health care provider plaintiffs from the Medicaid program. On June 29, 2016, the individual providers voluntarily dismissed their claims in this matter. Plaintiffs-Appellees PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF KANSAS AND MID- MISSOURI, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ST. LOUIS REGION, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2 and JANE DOE #3 are represented by: Arthur A. Benson, II, Esq. Jamie Kathryn Lansford, Esq. ARTHUR BENSON & ASSOCIATES 4006 Central Street P.O. Box 119007 Kansas City, MO 64171-9007 Telephone: (816) 531-6565 E-mail: abenson@bensonlaw.com jlansford@bensonlaw.com - and - Melissa Cohen, Esq. Diana O. Salgado, Esq. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA - NY 123 William Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 541-7800 Facsimile: (212) 247-6811 E-mail: melissa.cohen@ppfa.org diana.salgado@ppfa.org - and - Douglas N. Ghertner, Esq. SLAGLE, BERNARD & GORMAN 4600 Madison Ave. 600 Plaza West Bldg. Kansas City, MO 64112-3012 Telephone: (816) 410-4600 E-mail: dghertner@sbg-law.com Defendant-Appellant SUSAN MOSIER is represented by: Darian P. Dernovish, Esq. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1000 SW Jackson; Suite 560 Topeka, KS 66612 E-mail: ddernovish@kdheks.gov - and - Michael H. Park, Esq. Patrick Strawbridge, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 247-8006 E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com patrick@consovoymccarthy.com KOMET USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Degnen" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John A. Ross denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled SUZANNE DEGNEN, D.M.D., P.C. D/B/A SUNSET TOWER FAMILY DENTISTRY v. KOMET USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01631-JAR (E.D. Mo.). Suzanne Degnen filed the Motion concurrently with its initiation of the lawsuit, and as discovery is not yet complete, it is too early in the litigation for the Court to make an informed evaluation of whether class certification is proper, Judge Ross stated. However, the Court noted that the United States Supreme Court recently decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case." Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016). In light of this holding, and given the Plaintiff's early motion for class certification, Judge Ross opined, no unaccepted offer of judgment shall moot the case or otherwise affect a proper determination of class certification later in the proceedings. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gLlb1qwu KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Listeria-Contaminated Peas ------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class-action suit has been filed against a grocery chain and frozen vegetable manufacturers over allegations that a man's family was sickened by Listeria. Roger Coffelt Jr. filed a complaint on behalf of all those similarly situated on July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against The Kroger Co., The Pictsweet Co. and CRF Frozen Foods LLC alleging violation of the warranty of merchantability and negligence. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he purchased the defendants' frozen peas that were adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, a dangerous bacteria that can cause death. The suit states that the peas caused illness to and Listeria infection of his family members. The plaintiff holds The Kroger Co., The Pictsweet Co., CRF Frozen Foods LLC responsible because the defendants allegedly grown, processed and sold the adulterated subject frozen peas and maintained their food production and packing facilities in an unsanitary and unhygienic condition. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against defendants for damages for not more than $30,000,000 plus penalties, attorneys' fees and costs and for such other and further relief as the court deems proper. He is represented by Clayeo C. Arnold and Joshua H. Watson of Clayeo C. Arnold APC in Long Beach, California. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 5:16-cv-01471 LAMPS PLUS: Brief in "Varela" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Jan. 9, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMPS PLUS, INC. LAMPS PLUS CENTENNIAL, INC., LAMPS PLUS HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES, 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants - Appellants, Case No. 16-56085 (9th Cir., July 29, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No. 5:16-cv-00577-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal., March 29, 2016). Appellants Does, Lamps Plus Centennial, Inc., Lamps Plus Holdings, Inc. and Lamps Plus, Inc. opening brief is due January 9, 2017. Appellee Frank Varela answering brief is due January 8, 2017. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. The Plaintiff - Appellee is represented by: Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq. David Christopher Wright, Esq. McCUNE & WRIGHT, LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: 909 557 1250 - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 The Defendants - Appellants are represented by: Michael Keith Grimaldi, Esq. Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. Jeffry A. Miller, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250 1800 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26MM ------------------------------------------------------------- StreetInsider.com on July 25 reported that Lumber Liquidators settled its lawsuit with the "derivative defendants" but the story runs deeper than the headlines. The company will give $26.0 million to a settlement fund to be used to compensate those who bought company's shares between February 22, 2012 and February 27, 2015 and issue 1 million shares valued at 16 million to provide for compenstation. The 8-K states: "the Company will contribute $26.0 million to a settlement fund (the "Securities Class Action Fund") that will be used to compensate individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company will issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the Securities Class Action Fund with a value of approximately $16.0 million based on the $16.02 closing price of the Company's common stock on April 27, 2016." However, the full cost of the cash portion of the settlement ($26 million) is covered by insurance and the $16 million in common stock was recognized as a charge to earnings in 1Q. From an accounting standpoint, other than the impact of plaintiff litigation expenses, the charges have already been absorbed by the company. MAINE FISH: Dineen Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KRISTEN DINEEN and JOHN TEDONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MAINE FISH MARKET RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a MAINE FISH MARKET and NICHOLAS VAMVILIS, Case No. 3:15-cv-01554-WIG (D. Conn.), ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement, (2) conditionally certifying the Connecticut Rule 23 Settlement Class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of effectuating the Settlement; (3) appointing Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC and Pechman Law Group PLLC as Class Counsel; and (4) approving the Proposed Notice of Class and Collective Action Settlement. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0q87wdWP The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Laura Rodriguez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com - and - William G. Madsen, Esq. MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 Facsimile: (860) 246-1794 E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Miguel A. Escalera, Esq. Shel D. Myers, Esq. KAINEN, ESCALERA & MCHALE, P.C. 21 Oak Street, Suite 601 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 493-0870 Facsimile: (860) 493-0871 E-mail: mescalera@kemlaw.com smyers@kemlaw.com MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Russell, writing for MassLive, reports that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. would admit to no wrongdoing should a federal judge approve a $30.9 million settlement in a class action lawsuit involving retirement benefits the company offers its employees. The plaintiffs allege that the company charged excessive fees to employees who participated in the plan. Lawyers representing both sides in the dispute signed a settlement proposal filed in U.S. District Court in Springfield on June 15. The settlement has been negotiated between the company and lawyers representing present and former MassMutal employees who participate in the retirement plan. Presiding Justice Michael A. Ponsor on July 5 granted preliminary approval to the settlement. A hearing has been scheduled for November to determine whether the settlement should be approved, allowing time for those who might object to do so. "MassMutual's Thrift Plan contains unreasonably expensive and imprudent investment options. The plan's fiduciaries caused and continue to cause the plan to pay multiples of the market rate for comparable services to institutional investors and other large ERISA retirement plans," states the complaint, which was filed in 2013. ERISA refers to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which governs private pension plans and established minimum standards. "These funds were not selected and retained as the result of an impartial or prudent process, but were instead selected and retained by defendants as investment options in the plan because defendants benefited financially from the inclusion of these investment options," the complaint alleges. "By choosing and then retaining these imprudent proprietary investment options, defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the plan." In addition to the company, defendants named in the lawsuit are MassMutual CEO Roger Crandall of Longmeadow; his predecessor, Stuart Reece; and Reece's predecessor, Robert O'Connell. MassMutual Thrift Plan members, who are current or former employees, that filed the lawsuit in 2013 are: Dennis Gordon of Longmeadow, John Hine of South Hadley, Ronald Lindner of West Springfield, Donna Flieger of Palm Coast, Florida, Patricia Hurley of Chicopee, Janice Reynolds of Agawam and Sharon Jewell of Springfield. They are the named plaintiffs in the class action suit representing thousands of Thrift Plan members. According to Fortune magazine, MassMutual has more than 11,000 employees, with $266.5 billion in assets. The company, with $38.2 billion in revenue, was ranked 76th in the U.S. and 356th globally. Its headquarters are in Springfield. MDL 2328: A Plus Appeals Ruling in Pool Products Antitrust Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs A Plus Pools Corporation, Aqua Clear Pools & Decks, Liquid Art Enterprises, Oasis Pool Service, Incorporated, Pro Pool Services, SPS Services, L.L.C. and Thatcher Pools, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in multidistrict titled In re: Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:12-md-02328-SSV, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-30885, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products (Pool) are the country's largest distributor of products used for the construction and maintenance of swimming pools (Pool Products). Hayward Industries, Inc. (Hayward), Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (Pentair), and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Zodiac) are the three largest manufacturers of Pool Products in the United States. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the direct- purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed an antitrust case against Pool and the manufacturers. DPPs have filed two consolidated amended complaints, the first on June 29, 2012 and the second on June 21, 2013 each of which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court issued orders on both rounds of motions to dismiss. Following the orders, DPPs were left with the following five claims: (1) a Section 1 claim under the per se rule involving a horizontal agreement between the manufacturer defendants and Pool to fix free freight minimums; (2) three Section 1 claims under the rule of reason involving three separate vertical conspiracies (one between Pool and each Manufacturer Defendant) to exclude Pool's competitors; and (3) a Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Pool. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on these five claims. In addition, DPPs have moved for class certification. The Court has dismissed DPPs' Section 1 per se claim on summary judgment. Plaintiffs-Appellants AQUA CLEAR POOLS & DECKS, A PLUS POOLS CORPORATION, LIQUID ART ENTERPRISES, doing business as Carl Boucher, OASIS POOL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, PRO POOL SERVICES, SPS SERVICES, L.L.C., doing business as Premier Pools & Spas, and THATCHER POOLS, INCORPORATED, are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, L.L.P. 10 E. 40th Street New York, NY 10016-0000 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: Aranoff@bernlieb.com - and - Leonard Arthur Davis, Esq. HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, L.L.C. 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com - and - Jay L. Himes, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW, L.L.P. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0834 Facsimile: (212) 883-7501 E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, L.L.P. 850 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com Defendants-Appellees POOL CORPORATION, SCP DISTRIBUTORS, L.L.C., and SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS, L.L.C., are represented by: William Gaudet, Esq. ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P. 701 Poydras Street 1 Shell Square New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 581-3234 E-mail: william.gaudet@arlaw.com - and - Wayne Joseph Lee, Esq. STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN, L.L.C. 546 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 593-0814 E-mail: wlee@stonepigman.com MDL 2437: Direct Purchasers Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.), move the Court to certify this class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All persons or entities that purchased Paper-backed Gypsum Wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 (the "Class Period") directly from: (a) American Gypsum Company, LLC, Eagle Materials Inc., Lafarge North America, Inc., New NGC, Inc., PABCO Building Products, LLC, USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, TIN Inc., or Georgia Pacific LLC (collectively, "Manufacturer Co-Conspirators"); and/or (b) L&W Supply Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "L&W") where the Paper-backed Gypsum Wallboard was manufactured by American Gypsum Company, LLC, Eagle Materials Inc., PABCO Building Products, LLC, USG Corporation, or United States Gypsum Company. Excluded from the Class are (a) Manufacturer Co-Conspirators and Certainteed, along with each of their respective parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates (e.g., Pacific Coast Supply, LLC and L&W), and (b) federal governmental entities and instrumentalities of the federal government. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint (i) Sierra Drywall Systems, Inc.; Janicki Drywall, Inc.; New Deal Lumber & Millwork Co.; and Grubb Lumber Co., Inc. as representatives of the Class, and (ii) the law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll PLLC and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vedQWDzR The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by: H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Ruthanne Gordon, Esq. Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice Enders, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net ecramer@bm.net rgordon@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net cenders@bm.net - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Rachel E. Kopp, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com jcorrigan@srkw-law.com rkopp@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Brent W. Johnson, Esq. David A. Young, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com dyoung@cohenmilstein.com MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Sued in Texas Over Proposed Sale to Range ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hawkins, 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, and Pat Wood III, Case No. 4:16-cv- 02201 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2016), is brought on behalf of all stockholders of the common stock of Memorial Resource Development Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Memorial by Range Resources Corporation, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Memorial Resource Development Corp. is an independent natural gas and oil company focused on the exploitation, development, and acquisition of natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil properties with a majority of its activity in the Terryville Complex of North Louisiana. Range Resources Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. 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 - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com MOSER ENGINE: Schultz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFF SCHULTZ, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MOSER ENGINE SERVICE, INC., and RANDALL J. MOSER, KATHERINE I. MOSER, and JAKOB Z. NORMAN, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00738 (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff and other workers similarly situated to him worked an approximate minimum of 80-120 hours per week, up to 7 days a week (for weeks at a time) as a Generator Field Technician. However, these workers were only paid a flat annual salary but never received overtime for all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Moser Engine is a heavy construction equipment rental company located in Casper, Wyoming. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY 906 West Basse Road, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 822 5666 Facsimile: (210) 822 5650 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Owens" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Orenthal James Owens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01409 (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2016), was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2016 under Case No. 1:16-cv-07324. Plaintiff is a former college football player who asserts that the Defendants failed to protect the safety of student-athletes from the dangers of repeated head injuries. Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM 2859 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 Tel: (317) 920-6400 Fax: (317) 920-6405 Email: winingham@wkw.com Defendant is represented by: Robert W. Fuller, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA 101 N Tryon St., Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 Tel: (704) 377-8324 Fax: (704) 373-3924 Email: rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com - and - Todd G. Relue, Esq. PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP 1346 North Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Tel: (317) 637-0700 Fax: (317) 968-0976 Email: trelue@psrb.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Unveils New Concussion Protocol Amid Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Ken BElson, writing for The New York Times, reports that N.F.L. teams will be subjected to fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly the loss of draft picks if they fail to take players out of games after sustaining a concussion, according to new rules announced on July 25 by the league and the N.F.L. Players Association. The N.F.L. has come under repeated criticism, from doctors and players, for acting slowly to address injuries from hits to the head. Some of those who have accused the league have claimed it has hid the dangers of head trauma and not done enough to protect the well-being of the players. The N.F.L. has agreed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to settle a class-action lawsuit, and has donated tens of millions of dollars to companies aiming to develop safer equipment. Still, the league remains under an intense microscope, which is why it felt compelled to act after several players last season were hit in the head but not removed from the game, only to later have concussions diagnosed. After being lambasted for not doing enough to enforce its own rules, the league said in February that it would review its concussion protocol. The most egregious case came in November when St. Louis Rams quarterback Case Keenum was slammed to the ground after throwing the ball late in a game against the Baltimore Ravens. After his head hit the turf, Mr. Keenum could be seen putting both hands on his helmet. H e then tried to get up but fell back down. The Rams' trainer ran onto the field to look at Keenum but returned to the sideline without removing him from the game. Only after the game did the Rams test Mr. Keenum to see if he had sustained a concussion, and it was confirmed that he had. Teams previously were not fined for violating the league's concussion protocol. Under the revised rules, the league and the union will each appoint a person to monitor games to ensure that players are tested for concussions when warranted. Teams that are found to have skirted the rules can be fined up to $150,000 for a first violation, and a minimum of $100,000 for subsequent violations. If the commissioner determines that a team's medical staff did not follow the concussion protocol for competitive reasons -- for example, by keeping a concussed player in the game -- the team could be forced to forfeit one or more draft picks. Separately, the league and the union said that data on injuries would be reviewed annually to see if game rules needed to be changed to improve player safety. The two sides also established a committee to review the surface of playing fields to help prevent injuries. Players have consistently said they prefer playing on natural grass and have complained that fields made of synthetic material can be too hard. NEW YORK: "Seibert" Suit v. Tax Dept. Transferred to Albany County ------------------------------------------------------------------ Margo Seibert, Jennifer Moore, Catherine O'Neil, Natalie Brasington and Taja-Nia Henderson, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and Jerry Boone in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Defendants, Case No. 151800/2016 (N.Y. Sup., New York County, March 3, 2016), was transferred to Albany County on July 21, 2016, and assigned Case No. 151800/2016. Plaintiff alleged that tampon and sanitary pad sales tax imposed by the State is discriminatory against women. Plaintiff is represented by: Ilann M. Maazel, Esq. Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. Zoe Salzman, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 763-50000 NEWBY ISLAND: Landfill Odor Settlement Gets Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Bauer, writing for Milpitas Post, reports that a class-action lawsuit that alleged noxious odors, dust and air pollution that emanate from the Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery Park on the Milpitas-San Jose border harm area residents was settled earlier in July. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan on July 8 granted the final settlement agreement, which ended years of litigation involving the landfill operated by Republic Services of Santa Clara County at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in San Jose and residents living near the dump. "The court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that denial of the settlement would, in fact, be harmful to the class rather than beneficial," Kirwan wrote. . . . While the proposed settlement does not provide for closure of the landfill site or prevent expansion of the landfill site, it does provide for significant remediation measures to be implemented that could have a substantial impact on the door leaving the disposal facility. If the court were to not approve this settlement, those remediation measures would not go into effect. In other words, the odor and nuisance issues would remain as they currently exist." With the judge's action, Republic agreed to create a $1.2-million fund to be disbursed among 6,800 households mostly in a 1.5-mile radius from the landfill's composting facility, which the plaintiff's law firm claims is the main source of odors. "As part of the settlement, residents who reside within the 1.5- mile radius were allowed to submit claims for monetary compensation from a settlement fund established as part of the settlement agreement," Russ Knocke, a Republic spokesperson, said. "Also, as part of the settlement, Newby Island agreed to a number of improvements to reduce the potential for odors." According to the approved agreement, Republic Services agreed to provide about $2 million in injunctive relief to mitigate odors via a landfill gas collection system over the next five years. Also, by Dec. 31, 2017, Republic will have the sole option to either cease the receipt of green waste materials for composting or utilize forced air static piles for odor control (using cured compost on top of the piles as a bio-filter) for green waste composting. However, much of the basic processes for composting at the facility -- including providing compost for "beneficial uses" -- would be allowed to continue under terms of the settlement. Also, over the next 12 months, the company will also expand its misting system, which includes the use of odor neutralizers, around the compost facility. Similarly, over a five-year period, a total of $750,000 would be used to mitigate and prevent potential odors at the adjoining recyclery, the agreement states. The company will also cease, and pursue no further, the outdoor stockpiling of "wet" waste at the landfill bunker, which awaits processing, among other mitigation measures, the agreement states. In 2012, Evans Law Firm of San Francisco, in conjunction with Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin PC, sued Republic (named in the suit as International Disposal Corp. of California) over the San Jose landfill on behalf of Milpitas residents Peter Ng and Dolly Wu and thousands of other unnamed residents. But after the waste company challenged the data submitted to substantiate the odor nuisance allegations, the court ruled in January 2015 to deny the lawsuit's assertions. At that time, Judge Kirwan in part ruled that the suit was "overly broad" and members of the class action could not be easily identified as Milpitas residents or persons living within the vicinity of the landfill. The judge also asserted the case was not a class action per se -- a decision that briefly stalled proceedings. Previously, Mr. Knocke told this newspaper that the settlement was actually reached by the parties in July 2015 following the judge's initial ruling. "The case settled after Judge Kirwan denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, forcing the two named plaintiffs to try the case as individuals," Mr. Knocke said previously. "The Newby Island defendants were and remain confident they would win if the case were to go to trial. However, Newby Island settled the lawsuit to avoid the high costs of continued litigation." Also, Mr. Knocke asserted then that his company was not responsible for causing noxious odors smelled in Milpitas or any other nearby community. "Newby Island has not caused any damages to residents, and the evidence in the case shows that the odors complained of by some Milpitas residents result from a number of nearby natural and man- made sources, including the many tidal sloughs and marshes around Newby Island and prevalent in the South Bay, stagnant impoundments in the bay that were once used in salt production, and the bay itself," Mr. Knocke said previously. He noted the man-made sources include nearby public and private facilities involved in treating sewage and other forms of waste. "Scientific measurements by independent experts we have provided to the City of San Jose Planning Commission confirm the landfill is not a significant source of local odors," he said previously. In the last couple of years, talk of odor apparently emanating from Newby Island Landfill -- and impacting residents here -- coincided with plans to see the dump site grow in size. Under a proposal by Republic, the company seeks to increase the landfill's height by 95 feet, increase its capacity by approximately 15.12 million cubic yards and extend its estimated closure date until January 2041. The landfill's current closure date is 2025. However, to gain further information over possible impacts of odor on surrounding communities City of San Jose requested a formal odor study be conducted -- in part, based on an appeal Milpitas filed in 2014 over San Jose Planning Department's approval of a permit allowing the landfill to grow. In San Jose, that city's planning commission -- as well as Republic Services -- still awaits the results of the odor study. Those results may be announced at the panel's Aug. 24 meeting. And although there was initial talk among some in the community that the class-action lawsuit might be used to close down the Newby Island Landfill, Judge Kirwan's July 8 ruling dispelled that notion. "The court attempted to make it clear that closing Newby Island landfill was not sought in the underlying lawsuit and was not part of the relief requested by the plaintiffs," Judge Kirwan wrote . . . . Even if this settlement were rejected and the case proceeded to trial, relief in the form of closing the landfill or preventing expansion of the landfill would not be available as remedies." The plaintiff's attorneys could be reached for comment by press time. NIANTIC INC: N.J. Real Estate Owner Files Suit Over Pokemon Go -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a New Jersey real estate owner who on July 29 sued the companies behind the wildly popular "augmented reality" game Pokemon Go. The game has led to hoards of players roaming the physical world in search for virtual Pokemon creatures to catch, train, and do combat with on their smartphones. Jeffrey Marder of West Orange, New Jersey, claims that shortly after the game was released in June, Pokemon Go players began lingering around his property and knocking on his door seeking to capture creatures in his backyard. Mr. Marder's lawyer at Pomerantz wrote in a complaint filed on July 29 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that game designers placed virtual Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on or adjacent to private property such as Mr. Marder's without sign-off from the real-world property owners. The lawyers point out that the in-game sites, where players get items to help capture and feed their virtual creatures or fight virtual "battles" with other players, have popped up in locations including cemeteries and even the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. "Niantic has encouraged Pokemon Go's millions of players to make unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff and other members of the class -- a clear and ongoing invasion of their use and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited and continue to profit," wrote Jennifer Pafiti of Pomerantz. Ms. Pafiti was in a mediation on Aug. 1 and wasn't immediately available to comment. According to the complaint, Pokemon Go had been downloaded more than 30 million times as of July 23 generating more than $35 million in revenue for Niantic Inc., The Pokemon Co., and Nintendo Co. Ltd. The suit seeks to certify a class of all real estate owners in the United States whose property is on or next to Pokestops and Pokemon gyms and to force the companies behind the game to change their practices. Niantic Inc., the San Francisco-based software development company behind the game, is targeted with common law nuisance claims in the suit. Marder v. Niantic is believed to be one of the first suits targeting the companies with claims on behalf of private property owners. The complaint also seeks unjust enrichment claims against Niantic and the other defendants. They hold a financial interest by profiting from "a more immersive gaming experience" by encouraging players to venture onto private property, the suit says. Spokespeople for the companies didn't immediately respond to email messages on Aug. 1. NOB LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection ------------------------------------------------------ Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NOB LLC, The Kissel Co. and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08777, (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), seeks restitution, disgorgement of all illegal profits obtained, reasonable attorney fees and equitable relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. Defendant allegedly failed to obtain and use original account- level documentation in preparing the pleadings and initiating the lawsuits and relied solely on summary data needed to sue the consumer and used system-signed affidavits to deceive Texas courts into rendering judgments. NOB LLC is a debt collector engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas. Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Teter, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Tel: (214) 850-8095 Fax: (972) 243-2510 Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com NRS BILLING: "Williams" Suit Proceeds with Discovery ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRENNA NICOLE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NRS BILLING SERVICES, LLC, a New York LLC, Defendant, No. 16-CV-75-A (W.D. N.Y.), District Judge Richard J. Arcara granted Plaintiff's request to proceed with discovery despite the receipt of the Clerk's Entry of Default against the Defendant. The Court ruled that Plaintiff may seek discovery of Defendant as if Defendant were a non-defaulting party. Based on a similar case, entitled, Minx, Inc. v. West, No. 2:11-CV-00895-BSJ, 2011 WL 5844486 (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2011), the court concluded that, a defendant in default should be treated as a "party," rather than a "nonparty," for purposes of ordering discovery. A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/06dqRzfrom Leagle.com. Ms. Brenna Nicole Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Jerome Douglas -- alex@gp-nola.com -- Gesund and Pailet. NSK LTD: Settles Indirect Purchasers' Class Action for $34.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Class actions (the "Class Actions") against NSK Ltd. and some of its subsidiaries in Japan and the United States (collectively, "NSK"), have been pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It is hereby announced that NSK has agreed to settle with some indirect purchasers that are part of the plaintiff classes on the 22nd of July, 2016 (JST) (21st of July, 2016 (EST)). 1. Process from Filing of Class Actions to Settlement The plaintiffs of the Class Actions have alleged, among other things, that the defendants, including NSK, conspired with each other to restrict competition in sales of bearing products and other products in the United States, and have sought damages, injunctive relief, and other relief against the defendants. As a result of negotiations with some of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, NSK came to the conclusion that the best option to resolve those plaintiffs' claims was an early settlement and so reached a settlement with some of the indirect purchasers. 2. Concerned Parties of the Settlement Indirect purchasers (automobile dealers and end buyers of automobiles) 3. Contents of the Settlement Settlement Amount: US$34.5 million (Approximately 3.6 billion) The settlement will require the approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 4. Future Prospects NSK does not plan to revise its consolidated business forecast for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017. The Class Actions by other plaintiffs against NSK are still pending. The Class Actions are based on the actions that the U.S. Department of Justice investigated, which ended no later than July 2011; in other words, the filing of the Class Actions does not mean that any other suspicious conduct at NSK has been found in the United States thereafter. However, NSK recognizes the gravity of the incident described in this press release, and in addition to the preventive measures NSK has already developed, NSK will continue to develop measures to enhance its compliance systems, including strengthening of internal controls and further education and training of relevant personnel. NUUN & COMPANY: Faces "Riedel" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Nuun & Company, Inc. The case is captioned Jutamat Riedel and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nuun & Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04226 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016). Nuun produces and distributes electrolyte hydration drink tablets for athletes and enthusiasts in cycling, running, triathlon, golf, outdoor, and general fitness. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. NUVASIVE INC: No Trial Date Yet in Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a District Court has issued an order rejecting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint in the securities litigation and a trial date has not yet been set for this matter. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, and in July 2016, the District Court issued an order rejecting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. A trial date has not yet been set for this matter. At June 30, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. PANDORA MEDIA: 4 Suits by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the company continues to defend four class action lawsuits filed by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan. The Company said, "On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. This motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review." "On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations. "On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations. "On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a third class action suit against us in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Third Class Action Suit"). The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion to dismiss remains pending. "On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a fourth class action suit against us in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey ("Fourth Class Action Suit"). The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. On March 16, 2016, the district court granted the motion to stay." PANERA BREAD: "Boswell" Files Appeal in 8th Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Boswell, Vickie Svyder, and David Lutton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Panera Bread Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Panera, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants - Appellants, Case No. 16-3230 (8th Cir., July 29, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No. 4:14-cv- 01833-AGF (E.D. Mo., October 29, 2016). Panera Bread is an American chain of bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiffs - Appellees, are represented by: Bert Stephen Braud, Esq. Dennis E. Egan, Esq. POPHAM LAW FIRM 712 Broadway, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64105-0000 Telephone: (816) 221 2288 - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 5374 Gordonsville Road Keswick, VA 22947 Telephone: (434) 218 3133 The Defendants - Appellants are represented by: Justin M. Dean, Esq. Patrick Francis Hulla, Esq. Jennifer K. Oldvader, Esq. OGLETREE & DEAKINS 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Business: (816) 471 1301 Personal: (816) 471 1301 PHELAN HALLINAN: "Borg" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Borg on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 8:16-cv-02070 (W.D. Wis., July 19, 2016), sues over violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PLLC is a collection agency. Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or indemnitees: * 65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (31), Brazil (19), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Italy (1), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 65 such cases on July 29, 2015, and 63 cases on July 30, 2014; and * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on July 29, 2015 and 11 such cases on July 30, 2014. Smoking and Health Litigation cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations. PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal remains pending in the the class action in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995. The Company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $310) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff appealed the decision. In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending. PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Letourneau ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the appeal related to the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, the Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal to begin in November 2016. The case was filed in September 1998, and the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35 million) to our subsidiary. The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class members' addiction. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs. The Company said, "In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make the payment into a trust within 60 days." "In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $173 million), in the form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017. . . . The Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal to begin in November 2016. "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged misconduct caused in jury to each class member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct." PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Blais ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the appeal related to the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal to begin in November 2016. The Company said, "The Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases." "The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11.9 billion). "The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.4 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $69,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,000) to our subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class members' diseases. "The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $766 million) of the compensatory damage award into a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $153 million) of which is our subsidiary's portion and ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution of damages to individual class members and for payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs. In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. "In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make an initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5 billion (approximately $3.8 billion) into trust, to secure the judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security against JTI- MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against our subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. "In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $173 million) to cover both the Letourneau and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $580 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $83 million) beginning in December 2015 through June 2017. In June 2016, our subsidiary made its third quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8 million) into a court trust. This payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. "The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal in November 2016. "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct." PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that preliminary motions are pending in the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009. The Company, its subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Yet Properly Served -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said. PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending in Italy and Chile -------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016, there were 3 lights cases brought by individual plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries or indemnitees in Chile (2) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases on July 29, 2015, and 2 such cases on July 30, 2014. These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations. POINT & PAY: Cross Seeks Certification of Class & Two Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAVID CROSS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. POINT & PAY, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:16-cv-01182-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify these class and subclasses: (a) (i) All persons (ii) who paid money to Point & Pay, LLC via debit or credit card (iii) where Point & Pay, LLC provided bill pay services, (iv) where Point & Pay, LLC imposed a fee for such service (v) and where such fee actually charged was at a greater rate than the advertised or stated rate offered (vi) during the five year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the date of certification. (b) (i) All persons who reside in Florida (ii) who paid money to Point & Pay, LLC via debit or credit card (iii) where Point & Pay, LLC provided bill pay services, (iv) where Point & Pay, LLC imposed a fee for such service (v) and where such fee actually charged was at a greater rate than the advertised or stated rate offered (vi) during the five year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the date of certification. (Florida Subclass ). (c) (i) All consumers presently residing in areas subject to bill payment processing (ii) serviced by Point & Pay, LLC (iii) using a debit or credit card (iv) through Point & Pay, LLC's bill payment service (v) and who are subject to future improper surcharges for such payment (vi) at the date of certification. (Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Subclass). Mr. Cross also asks the Court to (i) enter and continue his Motion and defer its ruling on the Motion, (ii) allow for the Parties to engage in discovery on class-wide issues, (iii) grant him leave to file a full memorandum in support of his Motion upon the conclusion of class-wide discovery, and (iv) grant his Motion or, alternatively, grant the Motion in its entirety after the close of class-wide discovery and full briefing of the issues presented. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4pj2QeG The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND LAW, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@ednormand.com PSCU INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Jones" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CA'NON JONES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PSCU INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-11387-SJM-SDD (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to: (1) certify a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with the proposed FLSA class defined as: All current and former hourly customer service representatives -- both call center based and home based -- who worked for Defendant at any time during the last three years; (2) approve the Court-supervised notice to the collective action Class members to be sent via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text message; and (3) order PSCU to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing names, last known addresses, dates of employment, job titles, mobile phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cy7Z6RPS The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil B. Pioch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-3000 E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion for leave to amend a securities class action lawsuit remains under consideration by the Court. On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive. On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants' reply was filed on July 13, 2015. On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2016, and the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016. The motion for leave to amend remains under consideration by the Court. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and will continue to defend against the litigation vigorously. REMINGTON ARMS: Missouri Judge Set to Decide on Rifle Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a prominent class notice expert has warned a federal judge that the vast majority of the more than 7.5 million gun owners that could be part of a settlement over defective Remington rifles still won't know about it or be convinced to make claims. The dire prediction, outlined in an amicus letter on July 5, comes ahead of an Aug. 9 hearing in which U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City, Missouri, is set to decide whether to approve the settlement, which provides retrofits and refunds to consumers of about a dozen models of Remington rifles that have a defect that makes them accidentally trigger. The settlement does not address lawsuits filed over injuries and deaths. On Dec. 8, Judge Smith ordered lawyers to provide supplemental briefing on several issues, primarily his concern that the notice plan attracted only 2,327 claims. In his letter, the expert -- Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group LLC in Philadelphia -- wrote that the case exemplifies how an increasing number of companies offer low-cost notice plans that aren't effective. He said he filed a letter in this case because human lives were at risk. "According to plaintiffs' own complaint, there's a defect that is inherent in the guns and could kill someone," he said in an interview. "If this can be acceptable notice for a case like this, then the hope for effective notice in other cases is almost lost." Plaintiffs lawyers Richard Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault in Alexandria, Louisiana, wrote in an email that they "have retained, and the Court has approved, one of the nation's most capable notice providers that developed a robust notice plan. Now, internationally recognized experts on social media campaigns have developed an additional proposal that centers on a state-of-the-art, pre-tested social media program specifically designed for this case." Throughout his detention, Lewis was not permitted to appear before a tribunal and was not charged with a crime. John Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri, who represents Remington Arms Co., also did not respond to a request for comment. In the 2014 settlement, Remington denied that its rifles have defects. Plaintiffs lawyers have sought $12.5 million in attorney fees and costs. Most of the initial notices were sent out through an online site, banner ads, print magazines and social media. "Even under conservative calculations, this response rate is quite low," Judge Smith wrote in his December order. "The court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective firearm would not seek the remedy being provided pursuant to this settlement agreement." In a June 10 response, lawyers on both sides submitted a revised plan that would remind gun owners of the settlement, primarily through emails, Facebook and radio. They emphasized that the original notice reached 74 percent of all potential class members. But those numbers were misleading, wrote Mr. Hilsee, who has worked with the Federal Judicial Center to develop best practices for class action notice standards. The original notice, which had small headlines and confusing claim forms, likely reached about half the potential class members and should have been closer to 95 percent. He predicted that the new plan will have the same results. "I'm afraid the court and class will get stung," he wrote. RENO'S INC: "Downard" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled JULIA DOWNARD and VALORIE WASHBURN, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RENO'S, INC., RENO'S MANAGEMENT, INC., RENO'S EAST, INC., RENO'S NORTH, INC., RENO'S WEST, INC.; all doing business as "Reno's Sports Bar & Grill," and JESSIE STIPCAK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00927-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), Julia Downard and Valorie Washburn move the Court for entry of an order as follows: (1) conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "Any individual who worked as a server and/or bartender at any Reno's Sports Bar & Grill located in Lansing or East Lansing, Michigan at any time in the past three years"; (2) approving Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent forms for dissemination to members of the Class via U.S. Mail and e-mail; (3) requiring Defendants to identify all putative members of the proposed Class by providing their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in computer-readable and searchable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; (4) giving putative members of the Collective 60 days from the date the Court approved notice and consent forms are mailed to join this case if they so choose; and (5) requiring that throughout the 60-day notice period requested, the Defendants must post Plaintiffs' proposed notice in each Reno's Sports Bar & Grill location in a place likely to be viewed by employees and make consent forms available to putative Collective members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qsU1hZkI The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Nicholas R Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd St., Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582 5297 E-mail: Nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JAMES MENEAR, DWAYNE ANDERSON and PATRICK HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RETRIEVAL MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., D/B/A AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, AND QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00690-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to certify the class described in the complaint, and to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8oWpar3B The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q2 -------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that during the second quarter of 2016, 34 tobacco-related cases were served against Reynolds Defendants. The Company als disclosed that on June 30, 2016, there were, subject to exclusions, 286 cases pending against Reynolds Defendants: 269 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 262 total cases on June 30, 2015. Of the U.S. cases pending on June 30, 2016, 36 are pending in federal court, 232 in state court and one in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Maryland (47 cases); Illinois (47 cases); Florida (29 cases); New York (19 cases); Missouri (19 cases); California (15 cases); and New Mexico (13 cases). The U.S. case number excludes the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 2,967 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 3,839 individual plaintiffs, and 2,473 Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or certain other Reynolds Defendants. The table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of June 30, 2016, compared with the number of cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of March 31, 2016, as reported in RAI's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on April 26, 2016, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each case type. Change in Number of U.S. Case Numbers Cases Since as of June 30, March 31, 2016 Case Type 2016 Increase/(Decrease) --------- ----------------- ------------------- Individual Smoking and Health 121 2 West Virginia IPIC (Number of Plaintiffs)* 1 (approx. 564) No change Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)** 2,967 (approx. 4 (12) 3,839) Broin II 2,473 (15) Class Action 24 (9) Filter Cases 76 15 Health-Care Cost Recovery 2 No change State Settlement 28 No change Agreements - Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments Other Litigation and Developments 17 3 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that there are 34 cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates and indemnitees: five individual smoking and health cases, 24 Filter Cases and five Broin II cases. There are approximately 105 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco set for trial through June 30, 2017, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 10 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q2 ----------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that from January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016, 131 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were tried, including eight trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and/or other defendants, were returned in 64 cases, including 16 mistrials, tried in Florida (62), West Virginia (1), and California (1). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 60 cases tried in Florida, and one in California. Four cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another case in Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are pending. In the second quarter of 2016, ten Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried: * In Davis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. * In Dupre v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 20% at fault and RJR Tobacco 80% at fault, and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. * In Enochs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 22% at fault, RJR Tobacco 66% at fault, and the remaining defendant 12% at fault, and awarded $21 million in compensatory damages and $6.25 million in punitive damages against each defendant. * In Pardue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to the inability to seat a jury. * In Dion v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 25% at fault and RJR Tobacco 75% at fault, and awarded $12 million in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages. * In Nally v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 25% at fault and RJR Tobacco 75% at fault, and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $12 million in punitive damages. * In McCabe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 70% at fault and RJR Tobacco 30% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages. * In Durrance v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to a medical emergency. * In Mooney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. In addition, since the end of the second quarter of 2016, two other Engle Progeny cases, in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco were a defendant, were tried: * In Sermons v. Philip Morris USA Inc., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 80% at fault, RJR Tobacco 5% at fault, and the remaining defendant 15% at fault, and awarded $65,000 in compensatory damages and $17,075 in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $51,225 in punitive damages against the remaining defendant. * In Varner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco but against the remaining defendant. In the second quarter of 2016, no non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health cases, in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant, were tried. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Must File Expert Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries. The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of remaining claims. On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants' cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants' cigarettes were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969; defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants' ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the trial court issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are alleged to have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the relevant period. On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures it will follow for resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II plaintiffs, which claims will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked cigarette vents and, if so, whether blocking proximately caused their alleged injuries. Five cases have been selected to be the first claims tried, and they were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2018. In June 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert disclosures are tested for admissibility. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11th Circuit Decision in "Graham" Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., oral argument occurred on June 21, 2016, and a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is pending. In July 1998, trial began in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a then-certified class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris USA Inc., and others. The then-certified class consisted of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who suffered from smoking-related diseases that first manifested between May 5, 1990, and November 21, 1996, and were caused by an addiction to cigarettes. In July 1999, the jury in Phase I found against RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and the other defendants on common issues relating to the defendants' conduct, general causation, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and entitlement to punitive damages. On July 14, 2000, the jury in Phase II awarded the class a total of approximately $145 billion in punitive damages, which were apportioned $36.3 billion to RJR Tobacco, $17.6 billion to B&W, and $16.3 billion to Lorillard Tobacco. The defendants appealed. On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively decertified the class and set aside the jury's Phase II punitive damages award. But the court preserved certain of the jury's Phase I findings, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, nicotine is addictive, and defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market, breached duties of care, concealed health-related information, and conspired. The court also authorized former class members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect in those actions. In the year after the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, putative class members filed thousands of individual actions against RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris USA Inc., and the other Engle defendants, which actions commonly are referred to as Engle Progeny cases. As of June 30, 2016, 2,951 Engle Progeny cases were pending in state courts, and 16 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court. Those cases include claims by or on behalf of approximately 3,839 plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2016, RJR Tobacco also was aware of 11 additional Engle Progeny cases that have been filed but not served. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR Tobacco's affiliates and indemnitees. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's and Lorillard Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. The Eleventh Circuit, this time sitting en banc, recently heard argument on this issue again. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco raise many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation, or that any injury was caused by the smoker's own conduct. In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Russo v. Philip Morris USA Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held that, in Engle Progeny cases, the defendants cannot raise a statute of repose defense to claims for concealment or conspiracy. On April 8, 2015, in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Eleventh Circuit held that federal law impliedly preempts use of the preserved Engle findings to establish claims for strict liability or negligence. On January 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit granted the plaintiff's motion for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel decision. On March 23, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit requested briefing on the issues of whether plaintiff's claims are preempted and, if not, whether the defendants' due process rights are violated. Oral argument occurred on June 21, 2016. A decision is pending. On January 6, 2016, in Marotta v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Fourth DCA, disagreed with the Graham panel decision and held that federal law does not impliedly preempt any tort claims against cigarette manufacturers, including those of Engle Progeny plaintiffs. The Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction in Marotta, and briefing is underway. In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applied to all Engle Progeny cases in the aggregate. In May 2011, Florida removed the provision that would have allowed it to expire on December 31, 2012. The bond cap for any given individual Engle Progeny case varies depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time, but never exceeds $5 million per case. The legislation, which became effective in June 2009 and 2011, applied to judgments entered after the original 2009 effective date. During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was $100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million; Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard Tobacco - $15 million. In March 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their shares of the settlement. The settlement, which received final approval from the court on November 6, 2015, covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but does not cover 12 federal progeny cases previously tried to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; one federal progeny case pending as of June 30, 2016, involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and 2 federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs. Between August 3, 2015 and January 4, 2016, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed 39 Engle Progeny cases from state to federal courts in Florida. These cases were not part of the settlement and were all remanded back to state court. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,473 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, there were 2,473 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007. Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla., filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; and B&W's was approximately $31 million. The settlement agreement, among other things, limits the types of claims class members may bring and eliminates claims for punitive damages. The settlement agreement also provides that, in individual cases by class members that are referred to as Broin II lawsuits, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other liability issues, including whether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific causation," individual plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 23 Non-Shareholder Class Action Cases Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, 23 class-action cases, excluding the shareholder cases, were pending in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. These class actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers. In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products, finding that the district court failed to properly assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and were later decertified. Class-action suits based on claims that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and West Virginia. The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term "lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law or violates federal RICO. Such suits are pending in state courts in Illinois and Missouri. E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI, and other RAI affiliates in California state and federal courts. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claims that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette products or failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certain substances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery of economic damages. Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive- free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent or intentional misrepresentation. Additional class actions relating to either (1) RJR Tobacco's discontinuation of the "Camel Cash" promotion in 2007 or (2) alleged personal injuries purportedly caused by use of cigarettes or exposure to ETS are pending. Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Won't Review "Price" Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari in the case, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. Four "lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W, two in Illinois state court and two in Missouri state court. The classes in these cases generally seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. The seminal "lights" class-action case is Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), an action filed against the predecessor of Philip Morris USA Inc., referred to as Philip Morris. In March 2003, the trial court entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its mandate, and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal later in December 2006. In multiple filings since December 2008, the Price plaintiffs have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis upon which the Illinois Supreme Court had reversed the Price trial court's 2003 judgment and, on that basis, have attempted to reinstate that judgment. In April 2014, the intermediate appellate court reinstated the trial court's 2003 judgment. In November 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court (1) vacated the lower courts' judgments, (2) dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to file a motion to have the Illinois Supreme Court recall its December 5, 2006, mandate that had reversed the trial court's 2003 judgment, and (3) directed entry of a judgment of dismissal. The plaintiffs then moved in the Illinois Supreme Court to have that court recall its December 5, 2006 mandate. On January 11, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 2016, which was denied on June 20, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" -------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case. The stay subsequently expired, and the court accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which were continued by agreement of the parties. The next status conference is scheduled for August 24, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Stayed Pending "Price" --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price case. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There is currently no activity in the case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 12 Status Conference in "Collora" ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference is scheduled for September 12, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Set for Sept. 12 in "Black" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed 2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is scheduled for September 12, 2016. RITE AID: Certification of Consumers Class Sought in "Moore" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KYRA MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP. d/b/a RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 2:13-cv-01515-JD (E.D. Pa.), asks the Court to certify this class of consumers: All applicants for employment or promotion with Defendant Rite Aid residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) who (a) were mailed a letter substantially similar to the April 25, 2011 letter sent to Plaintiff Kyra Moore, (b) from March 23, 2011 until the date in 2014 when Rite Aid extended the period of time between the two letters First Advantage Screening Solutions sends on its behalf to job applicants classified Non-Competitive from five days to seven and (c) were not hired by Rite Aid. Kyra Moore alleges that she brought the consumer protection class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, against a large national employer that, as a tool in its high-volume, high-speed hiring operation, uses background screening reports it purchases from a third-party vendor to disqualify candidates for hire. Ms. Moore also asks the Court to certify that she is a proper representative of the class, and to appoint Francis & Mailman, P.C., Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C., Community Legal Services, Inc., and Consumer Litigation Associates P.C. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gkbVoiEp The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC 100 S. Broad Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 Facsimile: (215) 320-5703 E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com - and - Nadia Hewka, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 981-3700 E-mail: nhewka@clsphila.org - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 12515 Warwick Boulevard # 101 Newport News, VA 23606 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 Facsimile: (888) 892-3512 E-mail: leonard@clalegal.com SADDLEBACK EYE: Sued in Cal. Over LASIK Blade-Free Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER LEE, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SADDLEBACK EYE CENTER, an unknown business entity; CHARLES C. MANGER III, M.D., INC., a California corporation, d/b/a SADDLEBACK EYE CENTER; CHARLES C. MANGER III, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1- 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-00865007-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super Ct., July 21, 2016), seeks adequate compensation for damages and injuries resulting from Defendants' misrepresentation to consumers that the laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) performed by Charles C. Manger III. M.D. at Saddleback Eye Center would be a 100% blade-free procedure. The Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated because Dr. Manger did not always perform a 100% blade-free procedure. LASIK or Lasik, commonly referred to as laser eye surgery or laser vision correction, is a type of refractive surgery for the correction of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. Dr. Manger is the founder of Saddleback Eye Center, is the only LASIK surgeon at this facility, and has performed over 76,000 LASIK procedures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold C. Wang, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844 9696 Facsimile: (310) 861 0168 SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Counsel Named in "Baker" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart appoints interim class counsel in the consolidated case of MICHELE BAKER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., et al., Defendants, Civ. Nos. 1:16-CV-0220 (LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0292 (LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0394 (LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0476 (LEK/DJS), (N.D. N.Y.). All four class actions relate to water contamination in the Hoosick Falls area. The Court directed the clerk of court to open a new civil action and list as Plaintiffs "Michele Baker, Angela Corbett, Daniel Shuttig, Lisa Tifft, Marilyn Peckham, Michael Hickey, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of O.H., infant, Bryan Schrom, and Kary Schrom, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and list as Defendants "Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc." Judge Stewart ordered Law Firms of Weitz & Luxenberg and Faraci Lang, LLP as Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel and Law Firm of Powers & Santola as Liaison Counsel, and denied the alternate proposals of the parties adopting a four-firm management group, which the Court believed to likely lead to dissension and delay. The appointed Interim Liason Counsel shall provide assistance to Co- Lead Interim Class Counsel and will be the designated contact person regarding communications with the Court on behalf of the Plaintiffs and putative class. A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/AV4fhbfrom Leagle.com. Lisa Tifft, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas G. Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP & Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Defendant, represented by Douglas E. Fleming -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm - NYC Office, Mark S. Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm - NYC Office, Patrick D. Curran -- patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm - NYC Office, Sheila L. Birnbaum -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm -- NYC Office, Christopher V. Fenlon -- cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley, Allen Law Firm - Albany Office & Michael L. Koenig -- mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley, Allen Law Firm - Albany Office. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Allyson Himelfarb -- allyson.himelfarb@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law Firm - DC Office, pro hac vice, Dale A. Desnoyers, Allen, Desnoyers Law Firm, Elissa J. Preheim -- elissa.preheim@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law Firm - DC Office, pro hac vice, Michael D. Daneker -- michael.daneker@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law Firm - DC Office, Anthony D. Boccanfuso, Arnold Porter Law Firm - NY Office, Gregory J. Allen, Allen, Desnoyers Law Firm, Patrick L. Kehoe -- patrick@allendesnoyers.com -- Allen, Desnoyers Law Firm & Tal R. Machnes -- tal.machnes@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law Firm - NY Office. SAN DIEGO, CA: Leon Dismissed from "Jones" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Judge Larry Alan Burns granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned MAURICE JONES AND LEONEL R. LEON, Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV- 1778-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal.). Maurice Jones and Leonel R. Leon filed a putative collective and class action against San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws. The defendants moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. Judge Burns dismissed Leon from the suit. The judge also dismissed Jones' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, although Jones may proceed on his remaining claims. The plaintiffs may not substitute a new class representative. A full-text copy of Judge Burns' July 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/xXSTPv from Leagle.com. Maurice Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick, The Tidrick Law Firm. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego Trolley, Inc., Defendants, represented by J. Rod Betts -- rbetts@paulplevin.com -- Paul Plevin Sullivan and Connaughton & Matthew Wroblewski -- mwroblewski@paulplevin.com -- Paul Plevin Sullivan & Connaughton LLP. SANTORINI REST: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Danilo Perez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santorini Rest. Corp. d/b/a Alpine Garden Restaurant and Theodore Delis, Case No. 2:16-cv-04078-SJF- ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Alpine Garden restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Puja Sharman, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hulls, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 SANTORINI REST: Faces "Ramirez" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Danilo Perez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santorini Rest. Corp. d/b/a Alpine Garden Restaurant and Theodore Delis, Case No. cv-16-4078 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Alpine Garden Restaurant located at 11 Franklin Avenue, Franklin Square, NY 1101-Q. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com STERICYCLE: Pension Funds File Fraud Class Action in Chicago ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a pair of Florida firefighter pension funds, which hold shares in the suburban Chicago-based international hazardous waste disposal company Stericycle, are seeking a class-action suit in Chicago federal court, asserting Stericycle cost investors millions of dollars by not divulging that much of its business was based on allegedly defrauding customers. On July 11 in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, the St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and the Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed suit against Stericycle Inc., which is headquartered in Lake Forest. Stericycle operates in 21 countries as a waste disposal company, specializing in the disposal of medical, pharmaceutical and hazardous industrial waste, as well as the disposal of confidential documents. Charles A. Alutto is president and chief executive officer. In February 2016, the company said it brought in almost $3 billion in 2015. The five-count suit alleged Stericycle violated the U.S. Securities Act and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. Besides the company itself, the suit also targets several officers and directors of Stericycle, as well as a number of investment houses that served as underwriters to Stericycle. The lawsuit said the two firefighter pension funds bought more than 3,000 shares of common stock between them in the second half of 2015. However, in October that year the value of Stericycle's stock fell 19 percent and in April 2016, plunged another 22 percent. Shareholders lost millions of dollars. Stericycle blamed the decline on market conditions, but plaintiffs allege the real reason was Stericycle was hemorrhaging customers, because of "fraudulent billing practices." The lawsuit said Stericycle derives 63 percent of its revenue from what it terms "small quantity" customers, as the company pursues such accounts because they garner more profits. However, plaintiffs alleged Stericycle "engaged in a systematic and deliberate scheme" to regularly raise rates "without justification or notice to its (small quantity) customers." Plaintiffs alleged Stericycle would "simply increase" a customer's bill, hoping the customer would either not catch it, or if the customer did, still pay without squawking. The increases varied by customer, but in some cases were jacked up by as much as 18 percent every six months, according to the suit. Many customers paid the increases, with Stericycle subjecting those who complained to such threats as saying the company would bill "large liquidated damage charges" if they canceled their contracts, plaintiffs alleged. Other times, Stericycle would go the other way, offering "price reductions," but which would leave customers still allegedly paying more than they agreed to pay in the original contracts. Nonetheless, the company's billing practices spurred a number of customers to walk away, which began taking a toll on revenue by the third quarter of 2015, leading to the drop in stock value, plaintiffs alleged. Plaintiffs contended Stericycle misled investors into believing the company was above board in its dealings, which served to artificially buttress the price of Stericycle securities by making it appear the company's relations with customers were solid. The firefighter pension funds have asked for the class action to cover investors who bought stock between Feb. 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016. They seek compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. The pension funds are represented by the firm of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, which has offices in New York, Chicago, San Diego and New Orleans. STRATASYS LTD: Macomb Employees Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Macomb County Employees Retirement System and Mineworkers' Pension Scheme filed an appeal from an order and judgment entered on June 30, 2016, in the consolidated putative class action styled In re: Stratasys Ltd. Shareholder Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:15-cv-00455-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. The appellate case is captioned as Macomb County Employees, et al. v. Stratasys Ltd., et al., Case No. 16-3264, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In these consolidated putative class actions, the Plaintiffs bring claims of securities fraud under both Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, as well as claims of controlling-person liability under Section 20 of the 1934 Act. Plaintiffs-Appellants Macomb County Employees Retirement System and Mineworkers' Pension Scheme are represented by: Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE & MICHAUD 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 Telephone: (561) 961-2234 E-mail: JReise@rgrdlaw.com RRobbins@rgrdlaw.com eshonson@rgrdlaw.com - and - David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 S. Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747-0000 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com SRudman@rgrdlaw.com Defendants-Appellees Stratasys Ltd., David Reis, Erez Simha, Bre Pettis and Jennifer Lawton are represented by: Ryan Edward Blair, Esq. Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. Craig E. TenBroeck, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 E-mail: rblair@cooley.com kfukumura@cooley.com ctenbroeck@cooley.com - and - John C. Dwyer, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com - and - Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 E-mail: wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Thaler Suit in New York Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Suffolk Bancorp. The case is captioned THALER/HOWELL FOUNDATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK BANCORP, JOSEPH A. GAVIOLA, JAMES E. DANOWSKI, EDGAR F. GOODALE, TERENCE X. MEYER, JOHN D. STARK JR., HOWARD C. BLUVER, BRIAN K. FINNERAN, DAVID A. KANDELL, RAMESH N. SHAH AND PEOPLE'S UNITED FINANCIAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 609834/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 29, 2016). Suffolk Bancorp is a one-bank holding company that provides commercial banking and financial services though Suffolk County National Bank (SCNB), its wholly owned subsidiary. The Plaintiff is represented by: LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 The Defendant is represented by: WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403 1000 - and - SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Telephone: (212) 455 2000 TARGET CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Minn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Israel Garcia, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20727, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (DMN). The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16- cv-02574-MJD-BRT to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael J. Davis. Target Corporation is the second-largest discount retailer in the United States. The Defendant is represented by: Brian Melendez, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 4000 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3903 Telephone: (612) 486 1589 Facsimile: (866) 637 2804 E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dave Boucher, writing for The Tennessean, reports that Tennessee inmates infected with hepatitis C filed a federal lawsuit against state prison officials on July 25, asking the court to force the state to start treating all inmates who have the potentially deadly disease. The lawsuit, filed by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates in U.S. District Court in Nashville, says the Tennessee Department of Correction officials knowingly denying inmates care for their hepatitis C, also known as HCV, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It alleges the department is denying care because the best available medication is too expensive. "In reality, (department officials) ignore the medical needs of (inmates) and class members in order to save costs. (The department's) written policies for HCV diagnosis, assessment and treatment utilize outdated standards of care and normalize the practice of refusing treatment for unjust and medically unsound reasons," the lawsuit states. Inmates Charles Graham, also known as Charles Stevenson, and Russell L. Davis are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Attorneys representing the inmates include Thomas Castelli, the ACLU-TN legal director; Karla Campbell of Nashville-based law firm Branstetter, Stranch and Jennings; and Elizabeth Logsdon of advocacy organization Disability Rights Tennessee. No Exceptions Prison Collective, an inmate advocacy organization, also helped compile the lawsuit. "Incarcerating people under conditions that erode their health, safety and human dignity amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which not only has devastating long-term effects for those individuals, but which undermines the purported purpose of a rehabilitative criminal justice system," Mr. Castelli said in a news release. They are seeking what's known as class-action status for the case: If successful, that would mean every inmate infected with hepatitis C also could be eligible to receive treatment in the future. The lawsuit names as defendants new department Commissioner Tony Parker, department Assistant Commissioner of Rehabilitative Services Dr. Marina Cadreche and department Medical Director Dr. Kenneth Williams. In a statement, department spokeswoman Neysa Taylor defended the state's medical practices. "The Tennessee Department of Correction is currently unaware of the referenced court filing but is confident the department is providing adequate medical care as determined by medical protocol," Ms. Taylor said in an email late on July 25. In the past, the department also has argued that it is adequately treating all inmates. But a Tennessean investigation earlier this year found that, as of March, nearly 3,500 inmates had hepatitis C while only eight were receiving treatment that could cure them. As of the end of June, the enormous disparity between those infected and those receiving treatment remains: There are 2,935 inmates with hepatitis C, while four are receiving the newest treatment, Ms. Taylor said. An additional inmate refused treatment, and three have completed the newest treatment, Ms. Taylor said. Although infected inmates routinely leave and enter the Tennessee prison system, the change in number of inmates infected probably shows that at least several hundred inmates who remain infected have returned to their communities in the past few months. The department also doesn't test every inmate who enters the prison system. But of the 901 inmates tested in 2015, 424 tested positive for hepatitis C, Taylor previously told The Tennessean. Advocates -- including Jeannie Alexander, head of No Exceptions -- say that means there are probably hundreds of other inmates with the disease who are not diagnosed. "It is immoral and a violation of human rights and constitutional rights to knowingly refuse treatment to prisoners suffering from Hepatitis C when an effective treatment that has become the new standard of care is available," Ms. Alexander said in an emailed statement. Hepatitis C, a chronic disease that slowly destroys the liver, was difficult to treat until the release of new medications in late 2013. Before this time, treatment options worked in roughly half of all cases, with the regimen taking nearly a year and resulting in debilitating side effects. The new medications can take 12 weeks, requiring one pill a day, and result in curing the infection in more than 90 percent of cases. But they're very expensive: One pill can cost $1,000. That cost could be playing a role in the department's deciding how to treat the illness, according to experts and a former Tennessee prison employee. "We started for a while doing a hepatitis panel on everybody. And we stopped that because we found out there were too many people who had hepatitis C, and then if you're going to do that, you're going to have to do something about that," said Donald Willie, a former nurse practitioner who worked in a West Tennessee prison for 14 years. During a legislative hearing that involved a discussion of hepatitis C after The Tennessean published its investigation, department officials argued they are treating every inmate. But in the vast majority of cases, that involves routinely drawing blood from inmates to monitor the progression of their hepatitis C. That doesn't actually constitute treatment, national hepatitis C expert Dr. Arthur Kim recently told The Tennessean. "Without knowing specifics, blood draws may be part of the evaluation of the condition, but it would not count as treatment of (hepatitis C), in my view," said Dr. Kim, who works with Harvard Medical School and a national board that makes hepatitis C treatment recommendations. The department's refusal to treat inmates is causing physical and mental abuse, the lawsuit states. In addition to seeking class- action status, the inmates and their attorneys want the department to implement a plan to start treating all inmates as soon as possible and to pay for attorneys fees. TERRAFORM POWER: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Chamblee" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paula Xinis appointed Schlettwein and Spindler as the lead plaintiffs in the case, JOHN CHAMBLEE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM POWER, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. PX 16-981 (D. Md.). Both lead plaintiffs are putative class members who have the largest financial interests in the outcome of the litigation. The Court found that the lead plaintiffs' collective losses of over $60,000 provide adequate incentive to prosecute this case on behalf of the class, and no evidence exists that their interests are antagonistic to the class in any regard. The Court further noted that (1) on September 26, 2016, lead co- plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Amended Complaint; (2) on November 25, 2016, defendants will file their Motion to Dismiss; (3) on January 24, 2017, lead co-plaintiffs will file their Response; and (4) on February 23, 2017, defendants will file their reply. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 28, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/WX9TLCfrom Leagle.com. John Chamblee, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stephen Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, J Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomertantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. TerraForm Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard M Shapiro -- howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Joel S Green -- joel.green@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Lucy Heenan Ewins -- lucyheenan.ewins@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael G Bongiorno -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Timothy Jeffrey Perla -- timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Defendant, represented by Kevin Joseph O Connor -- koconnor@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley Allen & Tonya Kelly Cronin -- tkelly@birankelly.com -- Biran Kelly LLC. Alejandro Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Shannon Barrett -- sbarrett@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Daniel H Bookin -- dbookin@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Matthew Gill -- mgill@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP. THOMA BRAVO: Faces "Garagarza" Suit Over Qlik Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------- Jorge F. Garagarza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thoma Bravo, LLC, Project Alpha Holding, LLC, Project Alpha Merger Corp., Elliott Associates, L.P., Lars Bjork, Bruce Golden, John Gavin, Jr., Deborah Hopkins, Alex Ott, Steffan Tomlinson and Paul Wahl, Case No. 12586 (Del. Ch. Ct., July 22, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Qlik Technologies Inc. to enjoin the proposed sale of Qlik to Thoma Bravo, LLC, through an unfair and improper process. Qlik Technologies Inc. is in the field of visual analytics delivering solutions for self-service data visualization and guided analytics. Thoma Bravo, LLC is an equity and growth capital firm based in Chicago and San Francisco. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce McNew, Esq. Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq. WILKS, LUKOFF& BRACEGIRDLE, LLC 1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19806 Telephone: (302) 225-0850 Facsimile: (302) 225-0024 E-mail: mcnew@wlblaw.com smoultrie@wlblaw.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com - and - Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP W. 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com TOBIKO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan S. Galicia, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Tobiko Restaurant, Inc. and Jimmy H. Lin, Case No. 2:16-cv-04074-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Tobiko restaurant located at 209 West Merrick Road, Valley Stream, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com TROTT & TROTT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable David M. Lawson entered an order in the lawsuit entitled EARL D. WILSON v. TROTT & TROTT, P.C., also known as TROTT LAW, P.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-10335-DML-APP (E.D. Mich.), dismissing, without prejudice, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and striking the image from the CM/ECF system. "The Court finds after reviewing the motion that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandate of Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a), which requires that, prior to filing any motion in this Court, "[t]he movant must ascertain whether the contemplated motion . . . will be opposed," Judge Lawson stated. "The Court therefore will dismiss the motion to certify class and strike the motion," he added. Judge Lawson further directed the Plaintiff to file a class certification motion on or before August 8, 2016. If no motion is filed by then, the Court will deem the class claims abandoned. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NDUWjrXv TYCOON CONSTRUCTION: "Lituma" Sues Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Lituma and Marcelo Largo, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by Tycoon Construction Corp. with respect to certain Public Works Projects, Plaintiffs, v. Tycoon Construction Corp., Nick Massuridis and Darwin National Assurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 653828/2016 (N.Y. Sup., July 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits and damages resulting from breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and suretyship under N.Y. Labor Laws and N.Y. State Finance Laws. Tycoon Construction Corp. is a business incorporated in the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 1452 28th Ave, Astoria, NY 11102, with Nick Massuridis as owner/director. Plaintiffs performed various types of construction-related work at various public works project sites. Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Arenson, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR AND KARBAN 200 Park A venue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 100166 Tel: (212) 490-3600 Email: steve@adklawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Can't Use PI Info in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has enjoined Uber and CEO Travis Kalanick from using information gathered by a private investigator he hired to dig into the backgrounds of the plaintiff and lawyer in a class action lawsuit. Citing "fraudulent and arguably criminal" conduct by private investigation firm Global Precision Research, doing business as Ergo, Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff also enjoined Uber from conducting further research into litigants in Meyer v. Kalanick, 15-cv-9796, through the use of false pretenses, illegally recorded conversations and other unlawful means. "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 said. It is "sadder yet," the judge added, when the investigators "flagrantly lie" to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and his counsel to obtain derogatory information about them. The plaintiff, Spencer Meyer, alleges in a suit filed last year that Mr. Kalanick uses Uber's pricing algorithm to restrict price competition. If not for Mr. Kalanick's conspiracy to fix fares charged by Uber drivers, Mr. Meyer alleges, fares could be lower because drivers could compete on prices. Shortly after the suit was filed, Judge Rakoff's order stated, Uber officials reached out to Ergo to investigate Mr. Meyer. In a proposal to Uber, Ergo said it also would look into Mr. Meyer's relationship with his counsel, Andrew Schmidt, a Portland, Maine, attorney, to determine if Mr. Schmidt is "actually the driving force" behind the lawsuit. The task of completing the investigation was handed off to Ergo investigator Miguel Santos-Neves, who, according to the order, contacted acquaintances and colleagues of Messrs. Meyer and Schmidt and made materially false statements as to why he was doing so. After learning that Mr. Meyer was a conservationist associated with Yale University, Mr. Santos-Neves told sources that he was contacting them as part of a research project involving "up-and- coming researchers in environmental conservation." Mr. Santos-Neves told other sources that he was conducting research into "up-and-coming labor lawyers" or that he was conducting real estate market research. He then reported his misrepresentations to officials at Ergo, saying that his sources believed that he was profiling Mr. Meyer for a report on leading figures in conservation, which he said could provide him cover from suspicion if he asked sources about Mr. Meyer's lawsuit. Mr. Meyer brought the investigation to Rakoff's attention in May, and the judge authorized Mr. Meyer to depose Uber and Ergo officials and to serve document subpoenas on the two companies. In response to the subpoenas, Uber and Ergo claimed attorney- client and work-product protection over some of the documents and voice recordings. Judge Rakoff conducted an in camera review of the materials and, on June 9, denied all of Ergo's privilege and work-product protection claims. He found that Uber and Ergo may not escape the application of the "crime-fraud" exception to the privilege and work-product protection claims and that the materials they sought to protect "are not to be covered with the cloak of privilege." The crime-fraud exception applies when it is determined the client communication or the work product itself furthers the crime or fraud or is intended to facilitate or conceal criminal activity (see In re Richard Roe, 169 F. 3d 69, 71 (2nd Cir. 1999)). The judge said Messrs. Meyer and Schmidt had both become the targets of an "intrusive and clandestine investigation" and, when they sought more information about the investigation, they were faced with false denials, followed by efforts by the defendants to limit their access to that information. Thus, Judge Rakoff said, any potential work-product protections attached to Ergo's communications had been overcome. Judge Rakoff also said that Mr. Santos-Neves was not acting as a "rogue investigator" and that his misrepresentations were condoned by Ergo's leadership. The judge noted that Ergo is not licensed to do business in New York and that Mr. Santos-Neves recorded phone conversations with sources with phone numbers traceable to Connecticut and New Hampshire, which are both two-party consent states where it is illegal to record conversations without the consent of both parties to the call. Recording those conversations, Judge Rakoff said, is at worst illegal and, at best, "reckless disregard of the risk of failing to comply with the law." In addition to Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Meyer is represented by McKool Smith principals John Briody -- jbriody@mckoolsmith.com -- Lewis LeClair -- lleclair@mckoolsmith.com -- and James Smith; Constantine Cannon partner Matthew Cantor -- mcantor@constantinecannon.com -- and associate David Scupp; Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel partners Bryan Clobes and Ellen Meriwether; and Harter Secrest & Emery partners Brian Feldman -- bfeldman@hselaw.com -- Edwin Larkin III and Jeffrey Wadsworth. "Even though the deceptive investigation only highlighted Mr. Meyer's sterling personal and professional reputation, we are pleased with the court's opinion," Mr. Schmidt said in an email. Mr. Kalanick is represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner partners Peter Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Karen Dunn -- kdunn@bsfllp.com -- William Isaacson and Alanna Rutherford and associate Ryan Park. Reed Brodsky -- rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com -- a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, appeared for Uber. Uber declined to comment on the decision. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Arbitration Bid in Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. have lost a bid to force a federal antitrust suit challenging the company's pricing algorithms into arbitration. Uber and company CEO Travis Kalanick cannot enforce an arbitration clause that was buried in its terms of service and never directly presented to the passenger when signing up for the Uber app, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled on July 29. The judge, while lamenting the degree to which modern consumers are forced into waiving their access to the courts, said there was nonetheless a limit to the enforceability of company-backed arbitration clauses. Denying a motion to compel arbitration, Judge Rakoff said "a fundamental principle of contract formation" in the electronic era "will be left in the dust" if consumers can so easily sign away their rights. The effort to push the putative class action into arbitration was backed by Mr. Kalanick's attorneys at Boies, Schiller & Flexner and Uber's legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The company declined to comment on the ruling. Judge Rakoff said it's well established that consumers can see claims steered into arbitration where they have "voluntarily agreed to do so in response to endless, turgid and often impenetrable sets of terms of conditions." "But what about situations where the consumer is not even asked to affirmatively indicate her consent?" Judge Rakoff wrote in Meyer v. Kalanick, 15-cv-09796. "What about situations in which the consumer, by the mere act of accessing a service, is allegedly consenting to an entire lengthy set of terms and conditions? "And," he added, "what about the situation where the only indication to the consumer that she is so consenting appears in print so small that an ordinary consumer, if she could read it at all, would hardly notice it?" Lawyers for Uber-user Spencer Meyer, led by attorneys with Harter Secrest & Emery and Constantine Cannon, contend that the company's pricing algorithm amounts to price-fixing that violates federal antitrust laws. Judge Rakoff denied Mr. Kalanick's motion to dismiss in April and imposed sanctions on the company for unethical tactics used by a private investigator who was hired to dig into the backgrounds of Mr. Meyer and his lawyers. Judge Rakoff barred Uber from using the fruits of the investigator's work. On the motion to compel arbitration, the question for Judge Rakoff was whether Mr. Meyer had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial when he signed up for the ride-hailing service. Attorneys for Mr. Meyer claimed he lacked adequate notice of the existence of an arbitration agreement when he clicked through to sign up for the Uber app on his Samsung Galaxy S5 phone on Oct. 14, 2014. Judge Rakoff said users would be notified of the ADR provision only by clicking a hyperlink and then the button to access the terms and conditions and privacy policy -- "neither of which," Judge Rakoff wrote, "is remotely required to register with Uber and begin accessing its services. " And even if the user reaches the terms and conditions, he said, "these terms . . . consist of nine pages of highly legalistic language that no ordinary consumer could be expected to understand." VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned B & R SUPERMARKET, INC., d/b/a MILAM'S MARKET, a Florida corporation, and GROVE LIQUORS LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISA, INC., a Delaware corporation; VISA USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; a Delaware corporation, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, a New York corporation; DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, an Illinois corporation; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association; BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, a Delaware corporation; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., a South Dakota bank; CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association; PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; USAA SAVINGS BANK, a Nevada corporation; U.S. BANCORP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national banking association; EMVCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; JCB CO. LTD, a Japanese company; and UNIONPAY, a Chinese bank association, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05338-AT (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2016), has been transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Networks, the Issuing Banks through EMVCo conspired to shift billions of dollars in liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and California's Cartwright Act. Visa Inc. is a California-based payments technology company, which operates a retail electronic payments network in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Patrick J. Coughlin David W. Mitchell Alexandra S. Bernay Carmen A. Medici Patrick J. Coughlin 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 - and - John W. Devine, Esq. Lawrence D. Goodman, Esq. Robert J. Kuntz, Jr., Esq. DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO & WATTS-FITZGERALD, LLP 2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1400 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305/374-8200 Fax: 305/374-8208 VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jefferson County May Join Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- David Ball, writing for Port Arthur News, reports that the Jefferson County Commissioners Court cleared the first hurdle in hiring special counsel to join a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen. They made the decision on July 25 at their regular meeting at the Jefferson County Courthouse. County Judge Jeff Branick said an analysis was completed on the number of defective vehicles sold in each county in Texas. An agreement was reached to fine each vehicle with the Volkswagen Corporation. Jefferson County was invited by Dallas County to join the suit. Judge Branick said he authorized County Attorney Kathleen Kennedy to work with special counsel, Alex Constant, of Corpus Christi. There will be a contingent fee in the hiring, but no upfront money will be spent. It was reported in the February 24 edition of The Wall Street Journal attorneys filed proposed class-action suits in a U.S. District Court in California against Volkswagen AG, alleging the German car maker engaged in widespread fraud in marketing its vehicles in the U.S., citing federal laws used to curb racketeering. The civil filings, on behalf of more than half a million U.S. car owners and dealers, begins what is likely to be a long and potentially expensive series of court proceedings against Volkswagen. The world's second-largest auto maker has admitted to using so-called defeat devices to manipulate U.S. emissions tests of its diesel-powered cars. "This is the very first step and we will see what the results are," Judge Branick said. The commissioners approved donating property at 246 Dallas Ave. in Port Arthur to the city of Port Arthur. Judge Branick said they don't have a deed yet and the action will be done with a diversionary clause. The building was the former Jefferson County Health Department that built a new structure down the street. Ron Burton, planning and zoning director for the city of Port Arthur, said this item will be placed on the city council's agenda. Everette "Bo" Alfred, Precinct 4 commissioner, asked what the timeframe would be for the city to put the building into use. Mr. Burton said some abatement work needs to be done and should be completed at the end of the year. Some partitions inside the building also need to be removed. Michael "Shane" Sinegal, Precinct 3 commissioner, asked how much money would the city put into the project. Mr. Burton said it would be from $1.2 million to $1.3 million for the building to create a one-stop shop for contractors. Mr. Sinegal said he likes to see all of the governmental entities working together on a project such as this. The commissioners also approved an amendment to the agreement between the Department of the Army, Galveston and Jefferson Counties, and the Sabine-Neches Navigation District for a shoreline feasibility study from Galveston to Sabine Pass. Galveston has since dropped out of the study. The study, however, will cover Orange County as well as Jefferson County. "The proposed work will improve dikes and levees," Fred Jackson, assistant to the county judge said in a prior article. "The levee system there (in Orange County) is to protect them from storm surge." The three-year study would be a shared cost expense. Jefferson County's share would be $1.5 million. The Jefferson County Waterway and Navigation District, however, stepped up and joined in the agreement to pay the county's portion because the study "would benefit them greatly," Mr. Jackson said. He added that the navigation district does much for the county. "They'll do the $1.5 million cost-share this year," he said. "This is an ongoing system of studies. It's an overall defense package against storm surge. This will protect 100,000 acres of watershed and wildlife and protect industry with the protective marsh." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Investors' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Law.com reports that Volkswagen A.G. and four of its senior executives have moved to dismiss claims brought by U.S. investors over the damage its emissions scandal has had on share values. The shareholder case against Volkswagen was filed as a consolidated class action on behalf of holders of American depositary receipts, or ADRs, which are U.S. securities that represent shares of a foreign company and are traded over the counter in the United States, from Nov. 19, 2010, to Jan. 4, 2016. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank held that investors who purchase a foreign company's stock on a foreign exchange lack standing to sue in U.S. courts. In a motion filed on Aug. 1, Volkswagen attorney Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell, citing Morrison, wrote that the case "exceeds the territorial reach" of U.S. securities laws. Volkswagen does not file financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the claims are based on disclosures made in Germany under German laws, he wrote. "Volkswagen believes that the consolidated securities class action complaint is without merit," said Volkswagen spokesman Pietro Zollino in a prepared statement. "The plaintiffs do not satisfy the basic elements of a U.S. securities claim, and, in any event, this action challenging Volkswagen's investor disclosures, issued in Germany, does not belong in a U.S. court." The plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 11. "Plaintiffs intend to forcefully respond to all of Defendants' arguments," wrote lead counsel Jim Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann in New York. "We remain extremely confident that the court will agree that defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose the true facts for years while knowingly selling cars that massively exceeded applicable emissions standards. There is little question that the securities claims, on behalf of investors who purchased ADRs that are traded in the U.S., are subject to jurisdiction and should be litigated in the U.S. courts." The case is part of the multidistrict litigation in U.S. court against Volkswagen but was excluded from a $14.7 billion settlement the automaker reached in June. If it's not dismissed, Mr. Giuffra added, the case should be transferred to Germany, where government investigations are ongoing and about 130 lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen by 450 investors, including 90 in the United States, alleging more than $4 billion in damages. Volkswagen's motion also argued that the case failed to allege that four of its executives made misstatements to investors or did so with reckless intent in the company's marketing materials, financial reports or compliance stickers on diesel vehicles. Those executives are brand chief executive Herbert Diess, former Volkswagen Group of America CEO Michael Horn and Mr. Horn's predecessor, Jonathan Browning, who resigned in 2013. Tom Kelly, co-chairman of the white-collar and government-investigations practice at Dentons, represents Browning, and Mr. Horn is represented by David Schertler -- dschertler@schertlerlaw.com -- founder of Washington's Schertler & Onorato. They also include former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn, represented by Gregory Joseph -- gjoseph@jha.com -- a partner at New York's Joseph Hage Aaronson, who joined in the motion. In additional motions, Messrs. Diess and Winterkorn said the case fails to assert U.S. jurisdiction over them or that they had any control over statements made by Volkswagen's U.S. subsidiaries. WEWORK: Faces NLRB Complaint Over Arbitration Agreement ------------------------------------------------------- Nathan McAlone and Avery Hartmans, writing for Business Insider, report that WeWork, which aims to build "beautiful, shared office spaces" with a community mindset, is now facing a formal complaint from the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB, which investigates unfair labor practices throughout the U.S., is asking an adminstrative law judge to order WeWork to change policies that ban its employees from filing class action lawsuits. The complaint is a result of a case brought against WeWork by a former employee, Tara Zoumer. Ms. Zoumer alleges that she was fired after refusing to sign an arbitration agreement. Ms. Zoumer also filed a lawsuit against WeWork in San Francisco Superior Court, which was ordered into arbitration in New York. According to a person with knowledge of the situation, that arbitration is still ongoing and is a separate process. WeWork declined to comment on the NLRB's complaint, but a WeWork spokesperson provided this statement to Business Insider in June: "This charge has no merit. Our employees are our lifeblood and we firmly believe our policies are fair and lawful." The labor board complaint comes days after WeWork filed a lawsuit against a former employee who leaked data that showed the firm falling short of its financial goals. While the NLRB has brought a formal complaint, WeWork has not yet had the opportunity to present its case. A hearing in front of the judge has been set for September 7 in Oakland, Calif. The case Ms. Zoumer worked for WeWork from March to November 2015, as an associate community manager, during which time she alleged violations of California's labor code, including a lack of overtime and meal breaks due to a misclassification. When she brought these issues up with her managers at WeWork, she was told to not talk with her coworkers about them, and then asked if she wanted to resign, Ms. Zoumer says. After Ms. Zoumer spoke with her WeWork superiors, she claims they made all US employees sign new employment documents, which included what she and her attorney characterize as an "unlawful mandatory arbitration agreement." Ms. Zoumer says she was fired by WeWork after refusing to sign this agreement, which would have waived certain rights, including her right to a class-action claim. These kinds of arbitration agreements, especially those that strip class-action rights, are controversial. The NLRB considers them to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, but there have been conflicting rulings from the courts. A person close to WeWork, who asked not to be identified discussing a legal matter, said that though the majority of federal courts were on WeWork's side -- in favor of these arbitration agreements -- this fight could eventually go to the Supreme Court because of the differences in lower court rulings. What does that mean for WeWork? In June, Ms. Zoumer's attorney, Ramsey Hanafi, said that he expected an NLRB complaint to be issued. At the time, the NLRB responded to Zoumer's charges, notifying her of those they found to be with and without merit. These were included in an email to Ms. Zoumer, from NLRB Field Attorney Lelia M. Gomez: The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities, including her refusal to sign the Employer's Employment Dispute Resolution Program and Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non- Solicitation Agreement. -- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities, including her activities attempting to enlist other employees in pursuing a wage class lawsuit. -- NO MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when on October 21, 2015, West Coast Director Chia Donati instructed employees that they could not discuss their rights, wages, and/or other terms or conditions of employment. -- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an Employment Dispute Resolution Program that includes a class/collective action waiver, prohibits access to the National Labor Relations Board; and includes a confidentiality provision that precludes employees from discussing their wages, hours, and or other terms/conditions of employment. -- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implementing an Employment Dispute Resolution Program in retaliation for the Charging Party's protected concerted activities. -- NO MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Solicitation Agreement that includes a confidentiality provision that classifies personnel data as proprietary information. -- MERIT. Those charges with merit are included in the latest NLRB complaint. Now that the complaint has been filed, WeWork has 10 days to file an answer. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Motion to Quash Denied in "Chambers" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, Plaintiff, No. 4:16-MC- 421 RLW (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Ronnie L. White denied Jonathan Fortman's motion to quash the subpoenas directed to him, as counsel of the absent class members who objected to a proposed class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees in the suit, entitled, "Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.", Case No. 8:11cv1733 (C.D. Ca.). A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/QH5RYhfrom Leagle.com. The Court ordered Fortman to produce the requested documents, along with a privilege log (if necessary), or provide a declaration under oath listing the information sought in the document requests. Steve Chambers, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Rosemergy, CAREY AND DANIS & Steven A. Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP. Jonathan Fortman, Movant, represented by Jonathan E. Fortman, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC. WILLIS TOWERS: Resolution on Fee Bid Pending in Del. Chancery ------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, that the resolution of the fee petition in the Towers Watson & Co. Merger Litigation for $250,000 has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery of Delaware. Between July 9, 2015 and August 24, 2015, five stockholders of Towers Watson & Co. ("Towers Watson") filed putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of Delaware against Towers Watson's board members, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and against Willis Group Holdings plc ("Willis") and Willis' subsidiary Citadel Merger Sub, Inc. ("Citadel"), for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 28, 2015, one of the putative class action lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed. The claimed breaches of fiduciary duty originated from the execution of the merger agreement dated June 29, 2015 among Towers Watson, Willis, and Citadel, which was alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for Towers Watson stock. The original complaints in the lawsuits sought to enjoin the merger and monetary damages for the putative class. On August 27, 2015, Willis filed a Registration Statement and Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus relating to the proposed merger. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs in four of the putative class action lawsuits filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which, in addition to seeking to enjoin the merger and monetary damages for the putative class, sought disclosure of additional facts relating to the merger in connection with the stockholder vote thereupon. On September 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On October 13, 2015, Willis filed Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment No. 1") to the Registration Statement that included an amended Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which mooted (i) Plaintiffs' disclosure claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint pertaining to the compensation of Towers Watson's financial advisor for work unrelated to the proposed merger and the valuation analyses of the financial advisor; and (ii) Plaintiffs' contention in an October 8, 2015 letter that the proxy statement should disclose sales of 106,933 shares of Towers Watson stock by Towers Watson's CEO, John Haley, that Mr. Haley had previously disclosed in a Form 4 filed with the SEC on March 3, 2015. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiffs withdrew their Motion for Expedited Proceedings and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On November 18, 2015, Towers Watson, Willis, and Citadel entered into an amendment to the merger agreement which increased the pre- merger special dividend payable to holders of Towers Watson common stock prior to the closing date from $4.87 per share to $10.00 per share. On December 11, 2015, a majority of all outstanding shares of Towers Watson common stock were cast in favor of the proposed merger. On January 4, 2016, the merger was consummated. On April 18, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the stockholder action with prejudice as to Plaintiffs New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Pension Fund, The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, Cyndy Cordell, and Peter Mills, and without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a petition for fees and reimbursement of expenses in view of the supplemental disclosures contained in Amendment No. 1 and the increase in the pre-merger special dividend. The petition sought an award of $1.7 million in fees and reimbursement of expenses. On June 8, 2016, Defendants filed their opposition to the petition. After negotiations, the parties have agreed to resolve the petition for a payment of $250,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel by Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company. The resolution of the fee petition for $250,000 has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery of Delaware. WILSON COUNTY, KS: Class Certification in "Ogden" Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled RUSSELL K. OGDEN, BEATRICE HAMMER and JOHN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PETE FIGGINS, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wilson County, Kansas, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02268-JAR-KGG (D. Kas.), the Hon. Julie A. Robinson granted class certification to: "all current and future outside correspondents who wish to write letters to, and/or receive letters from, inmates in the Wilson County Correctional Facility and who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WmCcDZKA WORK OUT WORLD: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Susinno" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Noreen Susinno filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Noreen Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., Case No. 3-15-cv-05881, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Noreen Susinno filed the Case on July 30, 2015, alleging violations of the Communications Act of 1934. The appellate case is captioned as Noreen Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., Case No. 16-3277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Noreen Susinno is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS AND ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com Defendant-Appellee Work Out World Inc. is represented by: Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. ANSELL GRIMM & AARON PC 365 Rifle Camp Road West Paterson, NJ 07424 Telephone: (973) 413-8047 Facsimile: (973) 247-9199 E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com * Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up 17% in 1st Half 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed 119 new federal securities class action cases in the first half of 2016, a 17 percent increase over the last half of 2015, according to Securities Class Action Filings -- 2016 Midyear Assessment, a new report released on July 26 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The total represents an increase of 17 cases from the second half of 2015, and 32 more than the first half of 2015. The 119 filings were 27 percent higher than the semiannual average of 94 filings observed between 1997 and 2015. Federal filings of class actions involving mergers and acquisitions increased to 24 in the first half of 2016 -- 167 percent above the second half of 2015, and significantly higher than the semiannual range of five to nine filings from 2012 to 2015. "At the current pace, M&A-related filings in federal courts will double the annual numbers we have observed in the last four years. The January 2016 Delaware Court of Chancery decision in Trulia, which makes disclosure-only settlements more difficult to obtain, may have increased the likelihood that plaintiffs will again seek federal jurisdiction for M&A-related class actions," said Dr. John Gould, a senior vice president of Cornerstone Research. "We are releasing a report that looks in greater detail at M&A-related shareholder actions in both federal and state venues." "The data also show an interesting shift in Section 11 litigation from federal to state court, an issue that could soon wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court," according to Professor Joseph A. Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and former SEC Commissioner. "Plaintiffs have obviously calculated that they are likely to achieve more plaintiff-friendly outcomes in state court than in federal court, and are using a range of jurisdictional maneuvers to try to steer an increasing number of cases away from the federal forum. One defendant who has been shut out of federal court has petitioned the Supreme Court for a hearing, and if the Court grants the petition its ruling could have a major effect on the future evolution of Section 11 litigation." In the first half of 2016, filings against S&P 500 companies were more frequent than the historical average. If the current pace continues, one in 16 companies (6 percent) would be the target of a lawsuit by year end, the highest annual rate since 2008. The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the most filings with 43. The sector predominantly comprises biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies. There were 32 filings against companies in these subsectors. Key Trends: Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), a measure of market capitalization losses at the end of the class period, declined in contrast to the increase in the number of class action filings. Total DDL was $43 billion in the first half of 2016, 39 percent below the second half of 2015 and 28 percent below the historical semiannual average of $60 billion. Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL), a measure of market capitalization losses during the class period, was $331 billion, 11 percent above the historical semiannual average MDL of $297 billion. For the first time in the last 12 semiannual periods, MDL exceeded the historical average. In the first half of 2016, two mega filings made up 27 percent of DDL and 10 mega filings made up 58 percent of MDL, respectively. (Filings with a DDL of at least $5 billion or an MDL of at least $10 billion are considered mega filings.) On an annualized basis, filings against foreign issuers increased from 2015 levels in spite of an absence of filings against Chinese issuers, the most common foreign companies targeted by class actions in recent years. The Ninth and Second Circuits made up 62 percent of filings in the first six months of 2016. There were 38 filings in the Ninth Circuit and 36 in the Second Circuit. Dismissal rates for 2013, 2014, and 2015 filing cohorts increased over the first six months of 2016 compared to 2015 year-end. The 2014 filing cohorts showed the most substantial increase, from 14 percent at the end of 2015 to 34 percent currently. Dr. Gould and Professor Grundfest are available to speak with the media about Securities Class Action Filings -- 2016 Midyear Assessment. The report can be downloaded from the Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse websites. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. The firm has 600 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington. About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 4,200 securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also contains copies of more than 45,000 complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these cases. * New York Governor Signs Bill Against Tampon Sales Tax ------------------------------------------------------- Mary Bowerman, writing for USA TODAY, reports that if lip balm and dandruff shampoo fall under medical product tax-exemptions in N.Y., shouldn't feminine hygiene products too? Now they do. On July 21, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that will eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products. The move makes New York one of the few states that does not tax products likes pads, tampons and other feminine hygiene products. Here's a rundown on the so-called "tampon tax" and how it affects you: Is there a specific law that taxes feminine products? There isn't an actual "tampon tax" which specifically targets feminine products, but in many U.S. states, tampons are not exempt from state sales tax. Why are people upset over the "tampon tax"? Proponents of ending the "tampon tax" allege that the law creates a double standard, with some states taxing tampons, while offering tax exemptions for medical goods. Shouldn't a woman's menstrual cycle fall under medical goods? Which states do not have a 'tampon tax'? Eleven states do not have a tax on feminine products, according to Newsweek. Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania do not tax menstrual products, and five other states (Oregon, Montana, Delaware New Hampshire, and Alaska) do not have a sales tax, Newsweek reported. Are other states moving towards ending the "tampon tax"? Yes. Earlier in July, a Tampa woman filed a class-action lawsuit designed to repeal Florida's sales tax on tampons and refund millions of dollars to customers who have paid it. Carlee Wendell filed the lawsuit against several state agencies, including the Department of Revenue, and major retailers including CVS, Publix, Target, Walgreens and Walmart. In California, lawmakers voted in June to get rid of its state's tax on tampons and feminine napkins. How much money will consumers save if tampons are exempt from state sales tax? A lot. In New York, the state estimated that eliminating the tax would save consumers about $10 million a year. In California, the tax generates some $20 million a year. * Volkswagen Case Prompts Call for US-Style Class Action in Korea ----------------------------------------------------------------- Choi He-suk, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that opposition parties are seeking the introduction of US-style class action in South Korea prompted by Volkswagen's emissions scandal. On July 26, progressive heavyweight Rep. Park Young-sun of the main opposition The Minjoo Party of Korea submitted a proposal for the introduction of "class action act." "Like the Volkswagen case, (cases in which) it is difficult to prove damages due to an imbalance in information is increasing. However, the current civil suit (regulations) are focused on resolving disputes individually," Rep. Park said. "This proposal is to introduce legal means to ensure sufficient compensations and swift recovery of rights for Koreans." Rep. Park, who proposed an act that will introduce "punitive compensations" in June," is not alone in seeking to give consumers an edge in legal battles against corporations. The act Park proposed states that a party that allows others to sustain damages has the duty to make compensations. The Minjoo's floor leader Rep. Woo Sang-ho backed Rep. Park's proposals, saying that incidences of Korean consumers being harmed by multinational firms were on the rise, while the minor opposition People's Party has voiced support for Rep. Park's idea of punitive compensation. ********* 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 * * *