/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 165 Headlines 20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Response in "Richmond" Suit Due by Sept. 6 331 50TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in Southern District of New York 3M COMPANY: Nov. 30 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in St. John Case 3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss West Morgan-East Suit Pending 3M COMPANY: 437 Product Liability Suits Pending 3M COMPANY: Faces Ontario Suit Over Bair Hugger(TM) ADVANCED ROOFING: Class Certification Bid in Pentiuk Suit Denied AFNI INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Blueford" Suit AIRON FOODS: Faces "Zabala" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ALTAGRACIA DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. of New York AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Mandate AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Settlement Hearing in 3rd Qtr AMERICAN HONDA: "Alul" Sues Over Defective HandsFreeLink Device AMERICAN JEWISH: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims AMERICAN MEDICAL: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Moved AMERICAN SCREENING: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Classes ANTHEM BLUE: Court Wants Hepatitis C Cure Lawsuit Amended APPLE INC: Palmer Drops Class Suit over Data Use APPLE INC: "Gray" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal. ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Defending Against Special Products' Case BAKER HUGHES: Suit Over Halliburton Merger Dismisssed BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating Background Facts in "Williams" Action BATON ROUGE, LA: "McKesson" Sues Over False Arrest BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Action in Early Stages BLUE SHIELD: "Morris" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Garretson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit over Bank Fees BURGER KING: Faces "Badger" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida CARCOL ENTERPRISES: "Mendes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CAREFIRST INC: Policyholders' Class Suit Dismissed CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Injunction Bid in Merger Suit CBRE GROUP: Faces "Thoma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CETIS INC: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit CHESAPEAKE PLYWOOD: Faces Wendell Suit in District of Maryland CIRCLE K: Faces "Badger" Suit in Western District of Pennsylvania CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Motion to Stay NYPL Suit CITIGROUP INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Action CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Circuit Remanded "Efficient Enforcer" Issues CITIGROUP INC: Faces Frontpoint Asian Event Class Action CITIGROUP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Oceanografia Bondholders Case CITIGROUP INC: Interest Rate Swaps Cases Still Pending CITIZENS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices COLORADO DOC: Exec. Dir. Faces "Chrisco" Class Action COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Class CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Class Certification Hearing Continues on Oct. 7 COSTCO: Faces Consumer Suit over Kirkland Chicken CVS HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Caremark Class Action Settlement CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Pharmacy Benefit Case Pending CVS HEALTH: Partial Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action Sought CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought CYTRX CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Crihfield" Class Suit DEE GEE REST: "Caravantes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DONOHUE CAFE: "Padilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages DPCH LLC: "Agama" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Bid for Class Certification in "Pole" Granted EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ziglar" Suit Says FCA US: Faces "Lynd" Suit in Northern District of New York FCA US: Looper et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes FEDERAL CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: No Settlement Discussions in Class Suit GEMINI DINER: "Donato" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Aug. 31 Oral Argument in 5th Cir. Appeal HAT TRICK: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit in S.D.N.Y. HEALTH AND HUMAN: Class Certification Bid in "Burwell" Granted HEALTH EXAMS: "Saeteurn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Nichols Case HONEST COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2719 HUB GROUP: Settling Plaintiffs Dismissed from "Robles" Suit HUB GROUP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Adame" Suit HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suits in Federal and State Courts Pending IC SYSTEM: Serafin Seeks Certification of Class INSPERITY INC: Worksite Employee Retirement Plan Action Underway INTEL CORPORATION: California Class Action Settled and Dismissed INTEL CORPORATION: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Remains Pending IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Ghobriel" Suit in S.D. of New York ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paid $350,000 in Gallien Settlement ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court JEFFERSON COUNTY: Cochran et al. Seek Certification of Class JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Lawyer Object to Talc MDL Motion JRH RESTAURANT: "Liu" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay JS & COMPANY: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Three Classes K&G MEN'S: Faces "Halfon" Suit in Eastern District of New York KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Erickson" Sues Over Overpriced Shares KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Seeks Prelim. OK of Deal to Settle 3 FDCPA Cases LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Case Stayed Pending Appeal LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Case Remains Pending LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Defends "Davis" Class Suit LEGEND 72: "Li" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay LTF CLUB: Class Certification Bid in "Bartell" Granted in Part MDL 2159: Court Grants AutoZone Bid to Decertify in Wage Suit MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Devera" Suit MICHAEL WALTER: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MICHIGAN, USA: Salem Seeks to Certify Class of Female Prisoners MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: "Eng" Sues Over Sinking and Tilting of Tower MOJO MEDIA: Faces "Miller" Suit in Southern Dist. of California MOLSON COORS: Still Defends Ontario Class Action MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cancellation of Hall of Fame Game Prompts Suit NCI GROUP: "Jordan" Suit Moved to Central District of California NEW YORK TIMES: Unsuccessful Mediation in Worcester Telegram Case NEWPARK RESOURCES: To Fund Settlement in 3rd & 4th Quarter 2016 NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "David" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued OMNICARE INC: Aug. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Vaccaro Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint OSRAM SYLVANIA: August 31 Settlement Approval Hearing Set PARK PLUS: "Dorie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PETERSAN LEGAL TEMPS: "Hoffman" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay PHH CORP: Faces "Munoz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of North Carolina PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Yaqoob" Seeks Damages for Loss of Earnings PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Cox" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida PORTER MCGUIRE: Faces "Brown" Suit in District of Hawaii QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage QUALITY SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Case Appeal RAWLINGS COMPANY: Perez Seeks Certification of Class RAYONIER ADVANCED: Wins Final Judgment in Stockholders Suit RED GRANITE: Owner Misappropriated Money, Suit Claims REVLON INC: 5 Class Suits Filed over Elizabeth Arden Merger RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Faces "Ozone" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York RUSHMORE LOAN: Bovin et al. Seek Certification of Class RUSSAW TRANSPORT: "Mendenhall" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SABRE CORPORATION: NY Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit SANDBOX LOGISTICS: "Power" Suit to Recover Backpay, Damages SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bacardi" Suit in S.D. Fla. SHIVA ESTATE: Class Certification Sought in "Jaffer" Class Suit SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in Lacey-Siegried Action SPRING LIVING: "Thomas" Wants to Recover Withheld Compensation ST LOUIS COUNTY: 13 Cities Sued Over De Facto Debtors' Prisons STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway STARZ LLC: 6 Class Actions Commenced in Delaware Chancery Court STONE & TILE: Faces "Cohetero" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York SUBWAY 39077: "Aguiar" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. TED BAKER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Registered Nurses' Suit TEXTPLUS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sloatman" Suit Says THACATTACK INC: "King" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay TNJ ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in District of New Jersey TORN & GLASSER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Rodriguez" Suit Says TOTAL MERCHANT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in "Shulruff" Suit TROTT LAW: Court Tossed Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit TURNER OIL: Stanley et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Wandel" Action in New Jersey TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Laufer" Action in Wisconsin UNILEVER UNITED: Fleming's Class Cert. Bid Is Moot, Court Says VALVE CORP: "McLeod" Sues Over Unregulated Video Gaming VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Mass. Class Action VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Mierov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York VOLKSWAGEN AG: Groups File Complaints Over Emissions Settlement WALGREEN CO: Class Atty Not Getting $370,000 Fees, 7th Cir. Says WARREN RESOURCES: "Speiser" Sues Officers Over Misleading Reports WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in "Eggers" Suit WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification in "Perez" Suit Denied WELLS FARGO: Williams et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes WESTAR ENERGY: 2 Class Suits Filed Related to Merger WESTERN EXPRESS: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit over Royalties XPO LAST: Carter et al. Seek to Certify Overtime Claim under FLSA YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali Sues Over Losses in Retirement Plan YOUR MARKETING: Alan et al. Seek Certification of Class ********* 20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Response in "Richmond" Suit Due by Sept. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John W. Darrah entered an order in the lawsuit titled JAMES RICHMOND v. 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv- 06051 (N.D. Ill.), stating that: -- the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action is entered and briefed as follows: * response is due by September 6, 2016; and * reply is by September 27, 2016; -- status hearing/ruling is set for October 27, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; and -- all other dates remain as scheduled. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RUvT4hWj 331 50TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in Southern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against 331 50th St. Parking Corporation. The case is captioned Marco Sarmiento, On behalf of himself and On behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 331 50th St. Parking Corporation; Wall Street Garage Parking Corp.; John Street Parking Corp.; Park on 44th Street Corp.; JK Improvements Inc.; Joseph Vassallo, In his individual capacity; Joseph Vassallo, In his professional capacity; Michelle Vassallo, In her individual capacity; and Michelle Vassallo, In her professional capacity; the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06266 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). 331 50th offers parking and garage services. The Plaintiff appears pro se. 3M COMPANY: Nov. 30 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in St. John Case --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing on class certification in the St. John case is scheduled for November 2016. A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur Utilities. In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order staying discovery pending mediation which occurred in January 2016, but did not resolve the case and the parties continue their negotiations. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for November 2016. 3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss West Morgan-East Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit by West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority remains pending. In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority (Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water (collectively, the "Water Utilities"). The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that the defendants' chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake, and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment processes utilized by the Water Authority. 3M has moved to dismiss the case on legal grounds. That motion is pending. 3M COMPANY: 437 Product Liability Suits Pending ----------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, the Company is a named defendant in approximately 437 lawsuits (compared to approximately 122 lawsuits at December 31, 2015), most of which are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial phase of the litigation. 3M COMPANY: Faces Ontario Suit Over Bair Hugger(TM) --------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was served in June 2016 with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL The Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time. ADVANCED ROOFING: Class Certification Bid in Pentiuk Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Denise Page Hood denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to certify a class in the lawsuit styled PENTIUK, COUVREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C., the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED ROOFING, INC. d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING - MIDWEST, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12863- DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiff may refile its motion after Defendant has been served and has had the opportunity to respond to the Complaint and the class allegations. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GmC6bGqT AFNI INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Blueford" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Blueford respectfully moves the Court to certify the class described in the lawsuit titled NICOLE BLUEFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01067-WED (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, 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, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. As the 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 argues. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as class representative 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=XbN4kJdf 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 AIRON FOODS: Faces "Zabala" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Airon Foods Market Inc. The case is captioned Daniel Zabala, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Airon Foods Market Inc., Vicente Melo, Airon Melo, and Margarita Baez, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04423 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). Airon Foods operates grocery store located in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ALTAGRACIA DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Altagracia Deli and grocery Store No.2 Inc. The case is captioned Jesus Alvarez on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daniel Pimentel and Altagracia Deli and grocery Store No.2 Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06329 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016). Altagracia Deli is a grocery store located at 269 E 188th St., New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that AIG has filed a petition for writ of mandate in appellate court of the court's decision overruling AIG's demurrer. Between November 18, 2011 and February 9, 2015, eleven separate, though similar, securities actions (Individual Securities Litigations) were filed asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP. Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed. On September 10, 2015, the Southern District of New York granted AIG's motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled eight of the nine remaining actions. On March 27, 2015, an additional securities action was filed in state court in Orange County, California asserting a claim against AIG pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act (the California Action) that is substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation and the remaining Individual Securities Litigation pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion to stay the California Action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied AIG's motion to stay the California Action. On October 23, 2015, AIG filed an appeal of the court's denial. On January 28, 2016, the California appellate court summarily denied AIG's appeal. On February 8, 2016, AIG filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on March 30, 2016. On April 11, 2016, AIG filed a demurrer to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the California Action. On May 31, 2016, the court overruled AIG's demurrer in the California Action. On June 24, 2016, AIG filed a petition for writ of mandate in appellate court of the court's decision overruling AIG's demurrer. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Settlement Hearing in 3rd Qtr -------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuits related to Caremark is expected in the third quarter. The Company said, "AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first- filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed." "An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. "The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. "On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter was remanded to the trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits. "On November 24, 2015, the trial court ruled that the defendants had a duty to disclose the amount of insurance available at the settlement approval hearings and that the defendants breached that duty. The parties have settled this matter in principle, subject to formal documentation and court approval. Preliminary approval of the settlement was entered by the trial court on June 1, 2016. The hearing on final approval is expected in the third quarter. "We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this litigation." AMERICAN HONDA: "Alul" Sues Over Defective HandsFreeLink Device --------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Alul, Mark Gerstle, William Kenar, Yun-Fei Lou, Arpan Srivastava and Melissa Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04384 (N.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks restitution and damages, including enhanced damages, punitive damages, costs, and disgorgement; injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement; pre- and post- judgment interest on any amounts awarded; award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief resulting from fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Honda developed the HandsFreeLink (TM) for its vehicles. It allegedly failed to switch off when not in use, thus draining the battery. Acura is the luxury vehicle marque of Japanese automaker Honda, which operates in the United States as American Honda Motor Company, Inc. Plaintiff Gerstle purchased his 2004 Acura TL with "Hands Free Link." Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Roland K. Tellis, Esq. Mark P. Pifko, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2320 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com AMERICAN JEWISH: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Delgado, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. American Jewish University and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC630346 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide all timely meal and rest period, failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate statements and maintain required records, in accordance with California Labor Code. American Jewish University is a Jewish, non-denominational educational institution in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Moved ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Armando Caldera, the Plaintiff, v. American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00381- CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall granted Plaintiff's motion to extend the class action certification deadline to allow Plaintiff to refile his class action motion after discovery has been conducted. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 23, 2016 is vacated. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1lvpN0de AMERICAN SCREENING: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes in the lawsuit styled PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SCREENING, L.L.C., formerly known as AMERICAN SCREENING CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1- 10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07938 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiff defines the classes as follows: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant American Screening, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act: "a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant American Screening, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V alleging trespass to chattels: "a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant American Screening, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a complaint opt out notice." The Plaintiff further requests that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uhPMBZeq The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 ANTHEM BLUE: Court Wants Hepatitis C Cure Lawsuit Amended --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino,writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that patients must amend their class action accusing Blue Shield of California of unjustly denying coverage for Harvoni, a revolutionary, and expensive, cure for hepatitis C, a federal judge in San Francisco said August 10. Lead plaintiff Aram Homampour sued Blue Shield of California in October 2015 for refusing to cover Harvoni, a one-a-day pill that can cure hepatitis C in as little as eight weeks with little to no harmful side effects. Although Blue Shield has twice changed its policies to expand coverage of the drug since the lawsuit was filed, Homampour says the company "hedged its bets" on delaying coverage to increase profits. At a cost of $99,000, the 12-week treatment approved by the FDA in 2014 was shown to cure hepatitis C in 95 to 99 percent of patients during clinical trials. During a August 10 hearing, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said he was inclined to dismiss claims for injunctive relief because the insurer has changed its policies to expand coverage of the drug. But Orrick found it too early to dismiss claims for recovery of ill-gotten profits Blue Shield allegedly obtained by denying coverage in the past. "I think it's premature to foreclose it," Orrick said. Blue Shield attorney John LeBlanc argued that the plaintiffs cannot sue one of two named defendants -- Blue Shield Life and Health Insurance Co. -- because the actual insurer is California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California, an HMO benefit plan. "They are totally separate companies," LeBlanc said. "One's a health plan covered by the Health and Safety Code. The other is an insurance company covered by the Insurance Code." But plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Rozelle said his clients have shown a clear connection between the two corporate entities because they shared the same guidelines and process "to categorically deny" coverage for Harvoni. LeBlanc claimed that a January ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the Nat'l Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, prohibits the plaintiffs from masking their claim for damages as a claim for equitable relief. "That might be a strong argument on summary judgment," Orrick replied. "I'm not sure this is the time to foreclose plaintiffs' claim. I understand what you're arguing, but I think it's a little early." Lead plaintiff Marina Sheynberg filed a similar class action against Anthem Blue Cross and its affiliated insurance companies in the same court in July 2015. APPLE INC: Palmer Drops Class Suit over Data Use ------------------------------------------------ Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an iPhone user on August 10, dropped his federal class action accusing Apple of concealing a defect that jacked up data use. U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte dismissed Thomas Palmer's case with prejudice, and ordered each side to pay its own legal costs. Whyte granted Apple's motion to dismiss in May, but gave Palmer time to amend the complaint to address its deficiencies, including what misrepresentations Apple made to consumers, who made them, and how the consumers relied upon them. "The complaint is not adequate in my view, although I think it is pretty easily correctable," Whyte said during the May hearing. Palmer's attorney Christopher Pitoun said after the hearing that he was "looking forward to amending the complaint" but apparently did not. Palmer claimed the iPhone 5 had a defect which caused consumers to rack up large amounts of data use on their cellphone plans even when connected to Wi-Fi. He says Apple knew about the problem but hid it from consumers for the two years it took resolve the issue. "Through this entire time period, Apple materially omitted and failed to disclose the defect to consumers," he said in the complaint. "By omitting this material information, consumers were charged hefty fees for data they did not intend to use and had sought not to use, because they had initiated the connections through their Wi-Fi networks to avoid such charges." Whyte told Pitoun he had to specify how Palmer relied upon certain assertions which turned out to be either misleading or false, a key test under the California Consumer Protection Act. Emails to Palmer's legal team were not returned. The case captioned, THOMAS PALMER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-05808-RMW (N.D. Cal.). APPLE INC: "Gray" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- TERELL GRAY, the Plaintiff, v. Apple Incorporated, also known as Apple, Inc.; APPLE STORE, doing business as APPLE; KELLEY DORGAN; GREG HOPSON; City of Berkeley; Berkeley Police Department; TIMOTHY KAPLAN; ABC PARTNERSHIP (1-X names fictitious); XYZ Corporation (1-X names Fictitious); JANE DOE (1-X names Fictitious); John Doe (1-X names Fictitious), the Defendants, and Target, the Movant, Case No. 2:13-cv-07798, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04421-LB to the proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Laurel Beeler. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Javonna C. Baker, Esq. Tracey S. Cosby, Esq. 134 Evergreen Place, Suite 301 East Orange, NJ 07018 Telephone: (973) 977 0007 E-mail: javonnabakeresq@gmail.com traceysimone@aol.com - and - Karimu F. Hill-Harvey P.O. Box 764 South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 417 9963 E-mail: karimuhillharvey@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Jill Leigh Berry, Esq. Thomas M. Crispi, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10024 Telephone: (212) 753 5000 E-mail: jberry@schiffhardin.com tcrispi@schiffhardin.com - and - Christopher Eugene Mcintyre, Esq. FISHMAN MCINTYRE P.C. 120 Eagle Rock Avenue East Hanover, NJ 07936-3158 Telephone: (973) 560 9000 E-mail: Chris@FishmanMcIntyre.com ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Defending Against Special Products' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Atkore International Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Special Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. On November 16, 2015, the Company was served with a Special Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al., a putative class action claim filed on November 16, 2015 in the Southern District of Florida which defines a "National Class" and a "Florida Subclass" consisting of all condominium associations and building owners who had ABF and/or ABF II installed in combination with CPVC from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2010 nationwide and in Florida, respectively. The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages for the replacement and repair of fire suppression systems and any damaged real property or personal property, as well as consequential and incidental damages. At this time, the Company does not expect the outcome of the Special Products Claims proceedings, or any other proceeding, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, and the Company believes that its reserves are adequate for all claims, including for Special Products Claims contingencies. However, it is possible that additional reserves could be required in the future that could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. This additional loss or range of losses cannot be recorded at this time, as it is not reasonably estimable. Atkore International Group Inc. is a manufacturer of Electrical Raceway products primarily for the non-residential construction and renovation markets and Mechanical Products & Solutions ("MP&S") for the construction and industrial markets. BAKER HUGHES: Suit Over Halliburton Merger Dismisssed ----------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Company's merger with Halliburton have been dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's Fee and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court. The following lawsuits were filed in Delaware in connection with the Company's Merger with Halliburton. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuits, on April 30, 2016, the Merger Agreement with Halliburton was terminated/ The lawsuits are: * On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") against Baker Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton ("Red Tiger" and together with all defendants, "Defendants") styled Gary R. Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB. * On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court. * On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court. The Company said, "All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims. The plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the Merger negotiations by entering into the Merger Agreement and by approving the Merger, and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties." "More specifically, the lawsuits allege that the Merger Agreement provides inadequate consideration to our shareholders, that the process resulting in the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the Company's directors engaged in self-dealing, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement improperly favor Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding or impeding third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, among other things. The lawsuit filed by Annette Shipp also alleges that our Board of Directors failed to disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger in the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4. "On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, and rescission of the Merger Agreement, among other relief. On January 23, 2015, the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case"). "Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are asserted against the Company. "On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement was made subject to certain conditions, including consummation of the Merger, final documentation, and court approval. With the termination of the Merger Agreement with Halliburton, the March 18, 2015 settlement agreement is rendered null and void. "On May 31, 2016, the Consolidated Case and the claims asserted therein were dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's Fee and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court." Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating Background Facts in "Williams" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is evaluating the background facts in the "Williams" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota." "On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain subclasses of employees for collective action treatment. We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. BATON ROUGE, LA: "McKesson" Sues Over False Arrest -------------------------------------------------- DeRay McKesson, Kira Marrero, and Gloria La Riva, Plaintiffs, v. City of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Melvin Holden, Mayor - Parish President, Carl Dabadie, Jr., Chief of Police, Baton Rouge, and Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff, East Baton Rouge Parish, Col. Michael Edmonson, Superintendent, Louisiana State Police, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00520 (M.D. La., August 4, 2016), seeks lost wages, past, present, and future, expenses incurred to post bond, administrative fees and expenses paid to Defendants, court costs and fees, attorneys' fees and such other damages as may be proven at trial resulting from Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law, conspiracy, use of excessive force, arrest without probable cause, violation of First Amendment Rights, retaliation against exercise of freedom of speech and assembly, inadequate prison conditions, excessive bond, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and vicarious liability under Louisiana Law. McKesson and Marrero were arrested by the Baton Rouge Police while protesting for Simple Obstruction of a Highway of Commerce and were incarcerated in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. La Riva was filming the protests when she was arrested and charged with Simple Obstruction of a Highway of Commerce and was incarcerated in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. Holden is the Mayor of the City of Baton Rouge and the President of East Baton Rouge Parish. Carl Dabadie, Jr. is the Chief of Police of the City of Baton Rouge. Sid J. Gautreaux III is the Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish. Michael Edmondson is the Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police. Plaintiff is represented by: John K. Etter, Esq. Roy J. Rodney, Jr. RODNEY & ETTER, LLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 2690 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 483-3224 Fax: (504) 483-2259 E-Mail: rjr@rodneylaw.com jke@rodneylaw.com BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Action in Early Stages ---------------------------------------------------- Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed on February 24, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff. The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar faxes from BIOLASE. BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14, 2016 and denied liability on all claims. BIOLASE also denies that class certification is appropriate. The case is still in its early stages and no discovery or substantive motion practice has yet been conducted. BLUE SHIELD: "Morris" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Morris and Becky Ebenkamp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Shield of California and California Physicians' Service doing business as Blue Shield of California, Case No. BC625804, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-Cv-05914 to the proceeding. Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in 1939 and based in San Francisco, California. The organization serves over four million health plan members and nearly 65,000 physicians across the state. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Garretson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) ------------------------------------------------------------ Lester Garretson, Jr. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No.___ (Conn. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R). Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521-4492 Facsimile: (214) 526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit over Bank Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit. On March 3, 2015, the Bank and the Company were named as defendants in a putative class action alleging (1) that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class action respecting a similar claim, and before it made changes to its posting order and (2) that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its small business deposit accounts was improper from July 9, 2009 through July 8, 2014. The Court has denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the claims as pre-empted by federal law, but limited the plaintiffs' claim to a only breach of contract action involving Oklahoma customers. Discovery is on-going. Based on currently available information, management has established an accrual within a reasonable range of probable losses and anticipates the claims will be resolved without material loss to the Company. BURGER KING: Faces "Badger" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against BURGER KING CORPORATION. The case is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-RCM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Magistrate is Hon. Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Burger King, often abbreviated as BK, is an American global chain of hamburger fast food restaurants headquartered in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com CARCOL ENTERPRISES: "Mendes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Maria Mendes, Plaintiff, v. Carcol Enterprises, LLC, Maria C. Franco, individually, German Ortega, individually, and Paola A. Ospina, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04705 (D.N.J., August 3, 2016) seeks payment of compensation for all hours and overtime due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a limousine company in Elizabeth, Union County, New Jersey where Mendes was employed by Defendants as an office assistant and a dispatcher. Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, 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 AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com CAREFIRST INC: Policyholders' Class Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that dismissing a class action against health insurer CareFirst over a 2014 data breach, a federal judge in Washington D.C. said affected policyholders lack standing to sue without showing a substantial risk that the hackers have or will misuse their data in a harmful manner. The case captioned, CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-00882 (CRC)(D. D.C.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at http://goo.gl/HN8YdSfrom Leagle.com. CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Injunction Bid in Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Carmike Cinemas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the consolidated shareholder litigation, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for an order temporarily restraining the merger and for expedited discovery in support of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On April 25, 2016 and May 10, 2016, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division (the "Court"), against Carmike's directors, AMC, and Merger Sub arising from the merger: Solak v. Passman, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL) ("Solak Action") and Baskette v. Fleming, et al., C.A. No. 4:16- cv-170 (CDL) ("Baskette Action" and, together with the Solak Action, the "Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Actions, certain purported holders of Carmike's common stock (which we refer to as "Plaintiffs"), allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Carmike on March 31, 2016 with the SEC in connection with the merger contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the director defendants are personally liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also allege that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of Carmike in connection with the merger and that AMC and Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches. The Actions seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger until the alleged Exchange Act violations and breaches of fiduciary duties are remedied, to rescind the merger agreement or any terms thereof to the extent such agreement or terms have already been implemented, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. In addition, the Baskette Action seeks an accounting and award of damages. On June 10, 2016, the Court consoldiated the Actions into a single action: In re Carmike Cinemas, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL) (the "Consolidated Action"). On June 14, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for an order temporarily restraining the merger and for expedited discovery in support of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. Following that ruling, all proceedings in the Consolidated Action were temporarily stayed pending the close of the merger. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, Carmike believes that the claims raised in the Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. CBRE GROUP: Faces "Thoma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., CBRE, Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-06040 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate retail banks and other businesses across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Baker, Esq. Mike Curtis, Esq. BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1064 Facsimile: (415) 520-0446 E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com mcurtis@bakerlp.com CETIS INC: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. CETIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-01368-RNC (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order: (a) taking this motion under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively; (b) granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rN1ipvIC The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, 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 RKelly@andersonwanca.com CHESAPEAKE PLYWOOD: Faces Wendell Suit in District of Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Plywood, LLC. The case is styled Wendell H. Stone Company, Inc., doing business as Stone & Company Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chesapeake Plywood, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02821- MJG (D. Md., Aug. 10, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Marvin J. Garbis. Chesapeake supplies hard wood plywood. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS. 102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825 2300 Facsimile: (410) 825 0066 E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com CIRCLE K: Faces "Badger" Suit in Western District of Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Circle K. Stores, Inc. The case is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K. STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01185-RCM (W.D. Pa., Aug. 8, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Robert C. Mitchell. Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, founded in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, United States. It is owned and operated by the Canadian-based Alimentation Couche-Tard. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Motion to Stay NYPL Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., the court on June 8, 2016, denied defendants' motion to stay and granted defendants' motion to consolidate the case for discovery purposes with the consolidated proceeding captioned IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). CITIGROUP INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., the settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION on April 15, 2016, moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final settlement approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the motion in part as to claims based on collusive conduct and directed plaintiffs to file a separate pleading for claims based exclusively on non- collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 15, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Circuit Remanded "Efficient Enforcer" Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 23, 2016, reversed the district court's dismissal of antitrust claims in the action captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and remanded "efficient enforcer" issues to the district court. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Faces Frontpoint Asian Event Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was filed on July 1, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 05263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Oceanografia Bondholders Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Citigroup filed on May 9, 2016, a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by 39 plaintiffs alleging that Citigroup conspired with Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V. (OSA) and others with respect to receivable financings and other financing arrangements related to OSA in a manner that injured bondholders and other creditors of OSA. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D. Fla.) (Gayles, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Interest Rate Swaps Cases Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend lawsuits related to interest rate swaps. Numerous interest rate swap (IRS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and CGML, were named as defendants in industry-wide putative class actions filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Illinois. These actions have been consolidated before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with their IRS investments. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual actions filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all of these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 15-cv-09319 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-02858 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04005 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04089 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04239 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-02382 (Lefkow, J.) (N.D. Ill.), 16-cv-04561 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04950 (N.D. Ill.) (Dow, J.); 16-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-05409 (N.D. Ill.) (Ellis, J.) and 16-cv-04563 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.). CITIZENS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Oti v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania Co., Joseph Rumpf, Anthony Tionise, and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-2945-16 (N.Y. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016), alleges sexual harassment, racial harassment, and unlawful retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendants operate a company that provides banking services to individuals and businesses in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 COLORADO DOC: Exec. Dir. Faces "Chrisco" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Richard F. Raemisch, Exec Dir. of Colorado D.O.C. The case is captioned Luke Irvin Chrisco, Individually and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Richard F. Raemisch, Exec Dir. of Colorado D.O.C.; Jeffery P. Colwell, Clerk of the US District Court for the District of Colorado; and Postmaster General of The United States, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01995 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (D. Colo., Aug. 5, 2016). The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is a federal court in the Tenth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit). The District was established on June 26, 1876, pending Colorado statehood on August 1, 1876. The Plaintiff appears pro se. COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. COMMERCIAL LIGHTING INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-01362-MPS (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order: (a) taking this motion under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively; (b) granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RKGRUSQe The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, 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 RKelly@andersonwanca.com CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Class Certification Hearing Continues on Oct. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the lawsuit styled Christy Griffith, the Plaintiff, v. ContextMedia, Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02900 (N.D. Ill), continuing hearing on Plaintiff's motion to certify class to Oct. 7 2016 at 9:30 am. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DQGzZrbH COSTCO: Faces Consumer Suit over Kirkland Chicken ------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Costco's house brand Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast is more than 40 percent water, a hungry man says in a consumer fraud class action in Trenton, N.J. Federal Court. CVS HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Caremark Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting approval of the settlement of the Caremark class action lawsuit. Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used herein to generally refer to any one or more PBM subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. The parties have entered into an agreement to resolve the matter. In connection with this agreement, the Company has agreed to contribute a total of $80 million to the settlement fund and agreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue to reimburse its related legal fees. The Company has established reserves related to this matter to fully cover such payments. The settlement has received preliminary approval by the court and remains subject to final court approval. The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation. CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Pharmacy Benefit Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, a motion for class certification filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the Caremark defendants is currently pending. Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by pharmacies alleging that Caremark and other PBMs were violating certain antitrust laws. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark, but later returned to federal court, where it currently remains. In addition, in October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaint named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other two complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity. The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and later closed by the American Arbitration Association. In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases, including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally filed in that court, including the Bellevue matter. The consolidated action is now known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. A motion for class certification filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the Caremark defendants in August 2015 is currently pending. In the Bellevue matter, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice on May 20, 2016. The terms of the settlement are confidential and not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The settlement has been fully reserved in the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation. CVS HEALTH: Partial Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint remains pending. In July and September 2015, two related putative class actions, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corp., and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corp., were filed against the Company in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois, respectively. The two cases have been consolidated in United States District Court in the Northern District of California. In March 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint remains pending. Discovery is proceeding on the remaining allegations in the third amended complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid for prescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states. CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in February 2016, two third-party payors filed a similar putative class action, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp., against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The Company has moved to dismiss this complaint. CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought -------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard Capital Management, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint. CYTRX CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Crihfield" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed on July 25, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx Corp. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519, claiming that the Company and certain of its officers violated the Exchange Act by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts to the effect 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, thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the trial's results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely affected or delayed. The plaintiff asserts that such wrongful acts and omissions caused significant losses and damages to a class of persons and entities that acquired the Company's securities between November 18, 2014 and July 11, 2016, and seeks an award of compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. "We have directors' and officers' liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. These claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management's view of these matters may change in the future." CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. DEE GEE REST: "Caravantes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Caravantes, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Dee Gee Rest LLC d/b/a Ristorante Degrezia, Joseph Daprile and Bibi Daprile, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06177, (S.D. N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime premium, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, tips unlawfully misappropriated, unlawfully withheld gratuities, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law as well as compensatory damages for discrimination based on race and national origin pursuant to the New York State Human Rights. Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant doing business under the trade name "Ristorante DeGrezia" located at 231 East 50th Street, New York, NY 10022 with Joseph and Bibi Daprile as owners. Caravantes was hired by Defendants to work as a busboy and delivery person. Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 DONOHUE CAFE: "Padilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Padilla, on behalf of himself, Plaintiffs, v. Donohue's Cafe, Inc. d/b/a Donohue's Steak House and Maureen Donohue-Peters, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06141 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Donohue's Cafe, Inc. operates as Donohue's Steak House, a domestic business corporation located at 845 Lexington Ave, New York, New York 10065 with Maureen Donohue-Peters as owner. Padilla was employed as a dishwasher. Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 DPCH LLC: "Agama" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------- Oda Agama, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DPCH, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02836 (N.D. Ga., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a series of homes which provide residential care, support and supervision for individuals with developmental disabilities. Plaintiff worked as a house manager and care giver. Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Bid for Class Certification in "Pole" Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SHARON POLE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the putative class, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), the Plaintiff, v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07196-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "All current and former California-based salaried Fleet Managers, or persons who held similar job titles and/or performed similar job duties, who worked for Estenson within the State of California from September 6, 2010 to final judgment." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pr2l6piU EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ziglar" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christerphor Ziglar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., d/b/a Ontrac, ABC Entities 1-20, and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 2:16-cv-02726-BSB (D. Ariz., August 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a company that provides package and parcel delivery services to businesses and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Jennifer L. Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@amrtinbonnett.com FCA US: Faces "Lynd" Suit in Northern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is styled John Lynd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00984-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Brenda K. Sannes. FCA, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K. for tax purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3281 Facsimile: (914) 824 1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com FCA US: Looper et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEFF LOOPER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00700-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify three classes consisting of: "CLRA Class: all persons who bought or leased a Class Vehicle in California between July 1, 2009, and November 6, 2013"; "UCL / Song Beverly Class: all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class Vehicle in California between July 1, 2009, and November 6, 2013"; and "Texas DTPA Class: all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle in Texas between July 1, 2009, and November 6, 2013." The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys, Gibbs Law Group LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, to serve as class counsel; appoint Mr. Scott Johnson as class representative for Texas DTPA Class; and appoint Mr. Jeff Looper and Mr. Michael Bright as class representative for CLRA Class and UCL / Song Beverly Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HvM2DcyN The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Dylan Hughes, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350 9700 Facsimile: (510) 350 9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com dsh@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. Janine D. Arno, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750 3000 Facsimile: (561) 750 3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com eshonson@rgrdlaw.com jarno@rgrdlaw.com - and - Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq. PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C. 501 West Broadway, Suite 1095 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235 3200 Facsimile: (619) 235 3300 E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com - and - Robert G. Loewy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C. 101 Enterprise, Suite 350 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 442 7103 Facsimile: (949) 242-5105 E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 247 0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com FEDERAL CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Hernandez and Elvia Patoni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Federal Cleaning Contractors of Texas, Inc., Federal Cleaning Contractors, Inc., & FCC Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-783 (W.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, unpaid compensation, attorney's fees and costs, post- judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a janitorial service company headquartered in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Plaintiffs were employed as janitors at San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen Mulholland, Esq. Philip J. Moss EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309 San Antonio, TX 78209 Tel: (210) 308-6222, Ext. 101 Fax: (210) 308-6223 Email: cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: No Settlement Discussions in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Financial Services Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, that the Company has not engaged in meaningful settlement discussions with the parties in a class action lawsuit and discovery is in early stages. In March 2015, a lawsuit (Kalan et al. v. Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg, et al. (Case No. 2:15-CV-01435-WB)) was filed against F&M Trust, the banking subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services Corporation, as successor in interest to Community Trust Company, and several other Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit was brought as a class action. The named putative class representatives are participants, fiduciaries, or owner/employees of employee health and welfare benefit plans or sponsoring employers of such plans, whose assets are held by trusts known as the Regional Employers Assurance League Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association ("REAL VEBA") and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan ("SEWBP"). The putative class includes all participants and beneficiaries of benefit plans, and the benefit plans themselves, whose assets are held by the REAL VEBA and the SEWBP trusts. The Defendants are fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, or recipients of commissions or other monies from the REAL VEBA and SEWBP trusts. F&M Trust, as successor to Community Trust Company, which F&M Trust acquired by merger in November, 2008, and in its own capacity, is alleged to have served as the trustee of the REAL VEBA and SEWBP trusts from 2002 until January 15, 2010, when F&M Trust was discharged from its role as trustee pursuant to the court's order in the case of Perez v. John J. Koresko, IV. et. al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00988, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Perez Action"). Plaintiffs allege that between 2004 and the end of 2013, John Koresko and affiliated individuals in the course of operating multiple-employer welfare arrangements known as REAL VEBA and SEWBP, converted and misused assets of the trusts in an amount in excess of $35 million, as set forth more fully in the Perez Action. The Court, however, entered judgment against the Koresko defendants in the Perez Action in the amount of approximately $19 million, the shortfall in trust assets as found by the Court. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are either co-fiduciaries who failed to take appropriate steps to prevent the conversions, co-fiduciaries or parties-in-interest who improperly benefited from transactions involving the trusts, recipients of the improperly spent funds, or parties who otherwise knowingly participated in such breaches. As to F&M Trust, Plaintiffs allege that the F&M Trust failed to perform its fiduciary duties in accordance with the prudent man standard of care, knowingly participated in and facilitated misconduct by its co-fiduciaries, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or remedy any fiduciary breaches of co-fiduciaries. Plaintiffs purport to state claims against F&M Trust under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and common law. F&M Trust filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 28, 2015 on the basis that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On November 25, 2015, the Court denied F&M Trust's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to raising anew the statute of limitations defenses following discovery of the relevant facts. On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding and removing parties and raising additional allegations. On January 19, 2016, the F&M Trust filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on the basis that Court IV thereof, a claim for aiding and abetting a fiduciary breach, failed to state a viable claim against the Bank. On April 11, 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice Count IV of the Complaint on the basis of the statute of limitations. On April 26, 2016, F&M Trust filed an Answer to the Complaint, asserting crossclaims for contribution and indemnification against certain Defendants. On May 9, 2016, F&M Trust filed a Third Party Complaint asserting claims for, among others, contribution and indemnification against certain third parties. The Company said, "We establish accruals for legal proceedings when information related to the loss contingencies represented by those matters indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When we are able to do so, we also determine estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses, whether in excess of any related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability." "At this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss and, accordingly, have not yet established any specific accrual for this matter. The damages sought by the Plaintiffs against F&M Trust are as yet unspecified and uncertain. It is as yet unclear as to whether the case will be allowed to proceed as a class action and, if so, how the class would be defined. The case presents a number of legal uncertainties yet to be resolved including, whether Plaintiffs' claims as to F&M Trust are timely and whether, as a directed trustee, F&M Trust could be liable for the Plaintiffs' claims. There are significant facts in dispute and discovery is in early stages. We have not engaged in meaningful settlement discussions. "These assessments are based upon our analysis of currently available information and are subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. As new information is obtained, we may change our assessments and, as a result take or adjust the amounts of our accruals and change our estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts that may be accrued or included in estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses may not represent the actual loss to F&M Trust from this lawsuit. Our exposure and ultimate losses may be higher, possibly significantly higher, than amounts we may accrue or amounts we may estimate. "While we have included certain quantitative information related to the Plaintiffs claims against F&M Trust obtained from other public filings which may provide insight into the potential magnitude of the matter, such information does not represent our estimate of reasonably possible loss or our judgment as to any currently appropriate accrual. We also have not considered the possible availability and unavailability of insurance coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals or in determining any estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses. "We expect to incur additional legal expenses in connection with our vigorous defense of this matter." GEMINI DINER: "Donato" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosales Medina Donato, Osman Abimael Perez, and Selvin Herminio Ramos (A.K.A. WILSON) individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gemini Diner Inc. (d/b/a Gemini Diner), Constantinos Kassimis and Christos Argyros, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06207, (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants jointly operate a restaurant called "Gemini Diner" located at 641 2nd Avenue #1, New York, New York 10016 where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers but performed kitchen work most often. Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Aug. 31 Oral Argument in 5th Cir. Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has set a class action appeal for oral argument on August 31, 2016. The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004." "In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. "In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and us. "In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to the lower courts for further consideration. "In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court's order. "Our writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was granted and in June 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. "In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures correcting previously misleading statements had been made that resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective. The ruling was based on the district court's conclusion that the court was required to assume at class certification that a disclosure was actually corrective. "We do not agree with that conclusion and have filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the ruling. The Fifth Circuit accepted our petition. The matter has now been fully briefed and is before the Fifth Circuit for review. The Fifth Circuit has set the matter for oral argument on August 31, 2016. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." HAT TRICK: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Hat Trick Pizza, Inc. The case is titled Marcelo De Los Santos, Sandro Mayoral-Climico, and Aaron Cruz Aguacatitla, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Hat Trick Pizza, Inc.; Cookston Enterprises, Inc.; Mumbuh Style Pizza, Inc.; Sestwon Pizza, LLC; 117 Mineola Ave., LLC; 1872A Bellmore Ave., LLC; 1017 Jericho Tpke LLC; 3489 Riverhead Pizza, LLC; 3469 Mastic Pizza, LLC; 3683 Washington Heights Pizza, LLC; 3456 Hamilton Heights Pizza, LLC; 3342 New Windsor Pizza, LLC; 3361 Monroe Pizza, LLC; 3352 Mount Kisco Pizza, LLC; 3441 Ossining Pizza, LLC; 3616 West Village Pizza, LLC; 3694 Lower East Side Pizza, LLC; 3551 Yonkers Pizza, LLC; Team Stamford, LLC; Team East Hartford, LLC; Rolling in the Dough, LLC; Customers First of Connecticut, LLC; AAR, LLC; MIRC, LLC; AMS Pizza, LLC; 3488 Cortlandt Manor Pizza, LLC; Lucky 13, Inc.; AC Pizza, Inc.; Domino's Pizza, Inc.; Domino's Pizza LLC, and Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC, all doing business as Domino's Pizza, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06274 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). Hat Trick is a restaurant located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Domino's Pizza offers delicious pizzas, chicken and pasta, appetizers and desserts, and beverages. The Plaintiff appears pro se. HEALTH AND HUMAN: Class Certification Bid in "Burwell" Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RUTH SHERMAN, executor of the Estate of Bradley Olsen-Ecker, the Plaintiff, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Defendant. Case No. 3:15-cv-01468-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon. Jeffrey Alker Meyer denied in large part Defendant's motion to dismiss, and granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "all Medicare beneficiaries (1) who have received, are receiving, or will receive home health care services, (2) whose claims for coverage of those services under Medicare Part A or B (a) have been or will be denied at the initial determination stage, in whole or part, or who have received or will receive a notice of termination of coverage and (b) have been or will be denied, in whole or in part, at the two levels of review below the Administrative Law Judge level, and (3) for whom the initial determination or notice of termination of coverage was dated on or after January 1, 2012." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w3Df7w5r HEALTH EXAMS: "Saeteurn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- KATHY SAETEURN on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTH EXAMS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG16826605 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of a class comprised of current and former medical examiners employed by Health Exams in the state of California seeking to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and payments for rest periods and unreimbursed business expenses. Health Exams, Inc. is a California corporation, located in San Mateo, California. The Company operates a business providing mobile medical diagnostic screening throughout California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Pyle, Esq. Chad Saunders, Esq. SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE 428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (51 0) 663-9240 Facsimile: (510) 663-9241 E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com csaunders@ssrplaw.com HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Nichols Case ------------------------------------------------------------- HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs in the Nichols Litigation have appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005." "The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. "Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. "One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. "On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. "On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The supreme court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case." HONEST COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2719 ----------------------------------------------------- Margo Smith, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly- situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. The Honest Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00406, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-Cv-05857-Ab-Rao to the proceeding. The "Margo" case is being consolidated with MDL 2719 in re: The Honest Company, Inc., Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On August 5, 2016. These cases share factual issues arising from allegations that Honest labeled and marketed certain of its household cleaning products -- namely, its laundry detergent, dish soap, and multi- surface cleaner -- in a false and misleading manner. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that Honest advertises the products as free of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), even though the products' ingredients include sodium coco sulfate (SCS). According to plaintiffs, SCS necessarily contains SLS. In its August 5, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Andre Birotte Jr., United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:16-ml-02719-AB-RAO. Honest Company is an American consumer goods company, co-founded by actress Jessica Alba that emphasizes non-toxic household products to supply the marketplace for ethical consumerism. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 9666 Olive Blvd., Suite 690 St. Louis, MO 63132 Telephone: (314) 240 5278 E-mail: alex@keanelawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Roman P. Wuller, Esq. William R. Bay, Esq. Brian A. Lamping, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552 6121 Facsimile: (314) 552-7121 E-mail: wbay@thompsoncoburn.com blamping@thompsoncoburn.com HUB GROUP: Settling Plaintiffs Dismissed from "Robles" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the Robles class action lawsuit has been granted in part, and denied in part. The Company said, "On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary, Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc. Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an independent contractor and then as an employee. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class." The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time- consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of June 30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California. In early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern California. On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested putative class members." In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit. HUB GROUP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Adame" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing is scheduled for August 25, 2016, in the Adame class action lawsuit to consider the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, order the action stayed pending the outcome in Robles. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers. On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement stating that Tennessee law applies. Also on November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants' motions to transfer and dismiss. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed dismissal papers in state court, asking the court to dismiss Plaintiffs' suit because the agreement between HGT and its former California owner operators requires that this action be brought in Memphis, Tennessee or, in the alternative, order the action stayed pending the outcome in Robles. Briefing will now take place and a hearing currently is scheduled for August 25, 2016. HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suits in Federal and State Courts Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Christian Lubinski has filed a second putative class action complaint in Illinois state court while his federal district court case remains pending. On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub Group Trucking. The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint also alleged that Hub Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide workers' compensation and other employment benefits. The complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was unjustly enriched. The complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys' fees. On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division), in Memphis. On September 22, 2015, the court granted Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed. The court denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a lack of diversity of citizenship. Hub Group Trucking filed its response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint. Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016. On April 1, 2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court -- without ruling on the merits -- for the district court "to consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction." On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court. On the same day, HGT filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims are preempted by federal law. IC SYSTEM: Serafin Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ZYGMUNT SERAFIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-1340 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who Were sent a collection letter to the complaint in the action, (c) seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or household purposes, (d) whose account information was not subsequently reported to a national credit reporting agency (e) on or after November 10, 2014, (f) that was not returned by the postal service." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint himself as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aujrvIRD The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. 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 INSPERITY INC: Worksite Employee Retirement Plan Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation. The Company said, "In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our third party discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on behalf of Plan participants. This suit generally alleges that the Company's third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices. We believe we have meritorious defenses and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements." INTEL CORPORATION: California Class Action Settled and Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the parties have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California, and the lawsuit was dismissed in July 2016. The Company said, "At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation, these class- action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors." "All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In July 2010, the Special Master denied the MDL plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by us. In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. In December 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. We subsequently negotiated a settlement of the claims and the case was dismissed in September 2015. "All California class actions were consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. In March 2008, the plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we opposed. In February 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' request for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. In March 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' amended class certification motion, and plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The parties subsequently agreed to settle the case, and the lawsuit was dismissed in July 2016." INTEL CORPORATION: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company disputes the McAfee, Inc. shareholder class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08." "In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. "In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Ghobriel" Suit in S.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Iron Mountain Incorporated. The case is captioned Hend Ghobriel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Iron Mountain Incorporated and Iron Mountain Information Management, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-06367 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016). Iron Mountain is an enterprise information management services company founded in 1951 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paid $350,000 in Gallien Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has made a payment of $350,000 in accordance with the terms of the Gallien Settlement. The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under California law, we: * failed to pay wages owed; * failed to pay overtime compensation; * failed to provide meal and rest periods; * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements; * engaged in unlawful business practices; and * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. "The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks: * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses; * general damages; * pay for missed meal and rest periods; * restitution; * liquidated damages; * statutory penalties; * interest; * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses; * civil and statutory penalties; * injunctive relief; and * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable and appropriate. "Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015, the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Gallien Litigation on a class-wide basis for $400,000. On October 28, 2015, the parties executed a Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (the "Gallien Settlement") to document the terms and conditions of the settlement. In connection with the Gallien Settlement and subject to court approval, the settlement is based on claims made with a specific reversion of funds paid back to us, depending on the number of claims made by settlement class members for individual settlement payments. Under the terms specified in the Gallien Settlement, 55% of a net settlement amount of approximately $204,000 must be paid to settlement class members in the form of individual settlement payments. In the event the settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise does not become effective, we intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint. "On March 11, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the Gallien Settlement and scheduled a hearing for June 23, 2016 to consider final approval of the Gallien Settlement. On June 30, 2016, the court entered a final judgment and order approving the Gallien Settlement, which required a payment of $350,000 from us. On July 8, 2016, we made a payment of $350,000 in accordance with the terms of the Gallien Settlement." ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was filed on July 20, 2016, against the Company in a purported class action in the Superior Court for the State of California County of Alameda under the following caption: Sean Miner, David Heumann, and Shawna Admire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Miner Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that under California law, the Company: * failed to pay wages for all hours worked; * failed to provide paid rest periods and failed to pay missed rest break premiums; * failed to pay compensation due upon discharge from employment; * failed to issue accurate wage statements; * failed to reimburse for business-related cellphone usage; * engaged in unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices; and * are liable for civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The purported class includes adjunct instructors employed by us during the period of January 12, 2012 through the trial date. The complaint seeks: * an order that the action may proceed and be maintained as a class action; * declaratory judgments; * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses; * pay for missed meal and rest periods; * restitution; * liquidated damages; * interest; * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses; * civil and statutory penalties; * injunctive relief; and * all other relief as the court deems proper. "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint." JEFFERSON COUNTY: Cochran et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JEANNEAN COCHRAN, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, the Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00751-GNS-CHL (W.D. Ken.), Jeannean Cochran, Melinda Diemer, Melissa Shina, and Kelli Thomas move the Court to certify a class: "all union nonmember employees who, at any time since September 23, 2014 (and while this action is pending), are or were employed in the Job Family 1A classification and salary schedule for Jefferson County Public Schools and are, were or will be required to pay a compulsory fee to Defendants Local 4011, Council 962, and/or AFSCME pursuant to a compulsory unionism agreement between [American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Indiana-Kentucky Organizing Committee 962 (Council 962), Jefferson County Association of Educational Support Personnel, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4011 (Local 4011), Jefferson County Public Schools Board of Education (JCBE), and Donna M. Hargens (Hargens)]." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Milton L. Chappell, Richard L. Masters, and Sarah E. Hartsfield as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=26kmTwnM The Plaintiff is represented by: Milton L. Chappell, Esq. Sarah E. Hartsfield, Esq. C/O NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 321 8510 Facsimile: (703) 321 9319 E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org seh@nrtw.org - and - Richard L. Masters, Esq. MASTERS, MULLINS & ARRINGTON 1012 S 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 582 2900 Facsimile: (502) 587 0931 E-mail: lawsaver@aol.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Lawyer Object to Talc MDL Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs lawyers fearing trials in their cases could be sidelined are engaging in legal fisticuffs with one another over whether lawsuits linking Johnson & Johnson's baby powder to ovarian cancer should be coordinated into multidistrict litigation. More than 1,700 women and family members of those who died have sued Johnson & Johnson alleging its talcum powder products caused their ovarian cancer. Most are plaintiffs in about 250 cases sprinkled among state courts in California, Missouri and New Jersey. But in a July 15 motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Mississippi plaintiffs lawyer Don Barrett -- DBarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- moved to coordinate the federal cases for discovery purposes. That prompted several prominent plaintiffs lawyers to object on the ground that an MDL would only slow down discovery and halt upcoming trials, the next of which are scheduled for Sept. 26 in Missouri and Oct. 11 in New Jersey. "When we have an MDL, the point of it is all the pretrial efficiencies, but we've already got that established and trials are going forward," said Karen Menzies of Oakland, California- based Gibbs Law Group, who filed an opposition to an MDL on Aug. 5 with Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad. "This is one of the unique instances where a significant portion of the plaintiffs bar would prefer to litigate these in state court." Mr. Barrett, of Barrett Law Group in Lexington, Mississippi, did not respond to a request for comment. In his motion, he recommended the MDL go to U.S. District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Illinois. Warren Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- a partner at Burns Charest in Dallas, filed an Aug. 3 motion supporting Mr. Barrett's proposal. In an interview, he said that without an MDL, his clients and others in federal court would go "to the back of the line" behind trials planned in state courts. "The injury in this case was not confined to St. Louis, to New Jersey, or California," he said. "It's spread across the country and implicates women in practically every state. From my perspective, litigating hundreds of thousands of cases in individual jurisdictions spread throughout the country is difficult at best, and probably inefficient." Johnson & Johnson supported the creation of an MDL in an Aug. 5 filing. But its attorney, John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- leader of the mass torts, insurance and consumer litigation group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, asked that the cases be transferred to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton, New Jersey, or U.S. District Judge Timothy DeGiusti in Oklahoma City, who "has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL proceeding." So far, three cases have ended in verdicts, with juries issuing awards of $72 million and $55 million earlier this year. About 25 individual cases have been filed in federal courts. But more than 1,400 women are plaintiffs in 20 cases filed in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, where this year's verdicts came out. There are nearly 200 individual cases in New Jersey state courts, and 42 lawsuits in California state courts brought on behalf of about 200 women. Ms. Menzies said California has a "preference statute" that allows women facing a shortened life span to get ahead of the line for trial. "People are unfortunately frequently having to attend funerals of their clients," she said. "If we're able to get trials in state court jurisdictions, or a place in California, where we get preference statutes, that's uniquely important." JRH RESTAURANT: "Liu" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guoliang Liu, Zhansheng Gu, Jian Li, and Changying Zou on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.R.H. Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Kumo Sushi, Jimmy's Sushi Buffet Inc. d/b/a Kikoo Sushi, Lindsey Buffet Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Kumo Sushi, Jimmy Chen, Yun Lin Chen, Hui Zhao, Queenie Chen, Jane Doe and Vera Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06219, (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants are a restaurant group owned by Chen and his family, where Plaintiff worked as delivery personnel. Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com JS & COMPANY: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Three Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action against the Defendants, in the lawsuit styled PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. JS & COMPANY INCORPORATED, PRACTICE DATA SYSTEMS INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07943 (N.D. Ill.), The Plaintiff defines the classes as follows: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of the action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JS & Company or Practice Data Systems Inc., promoting either of their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week"; For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act -- "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JSC or PDS, promoting any of their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels -- "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JSC or PDS, promoting any of their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a complaint opt out notice. Plaintiff contends that the fax at issue does not even attempt to provide a compliant opt out notice". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nbAHPZQG The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 -0379 K&G MEN'S: Faces "Halfon" Suit in Eastern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against K&G Men's Company, Inc. The case is captioned Eric Halfon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K&G Men's Company, Inc., D/B/A K&G Fashion Superstore, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04474 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016). K&G operates a superstore for men's and women's clothing, childrens' clothing, shoes, & accessories. The Plaintiff appears pro se. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Erickson" Sues Over Overpriced Shares ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Erickson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Gregory P. Madison and Scott A. Holmes, Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-06218 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Plaintiff claims to have purchased Keryx common stock at artificially inflated prices. Keryx failed to promptly disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to its financial condition and performance, growth, operations, financial statements, business, products, markets, management, earnings and present and future business prospects. Plaintiff claims to have sustained losses after corrective disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Tel: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Seeks Prelim. OK of Deal to Settle 3 FDCPA Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in three class action lawsuits against Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois jointly move the Court for an order: (1) certifying this proposed Settlement Class for settlement purposes only: All persons, including Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012 through the Preliminary Approval Date, were sent a '30-day Notice and Demand' by KSN at an Illinois address (or at multiple addresses, including an Illinois address); (2) preliminarily approving all terms and conditions of the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release; (3) directing Notice to the Class Members; and (4) setting dates for submitting claims, exclusions, objections and a Final Approval Hearing. The cases, which allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are: (i) JANICE MCCARTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-03909 (N.D. Ill.), (ii) KRYSTYNA SCEHURA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-8838 (N.D. Ill.), and (iii) AMY LILL and CHRISTOPHER WOJDELKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-2647 (N.D. Ill.). KSN represents that there were approximately 26,383 members in the class between May 27, 2012, and June 29, 2016. Based on this representation and the KSN's representation of its net worth, the parties agreed to settle their lawsuits, KSN agreed to establish a settlement fund of $290,000, plus $30,000 for the costs of class notice and administration, for the total of $320,000 (compared to the total of $220,000 in the original settlement agreement). Further, KSN agreed to pay any additional costs of class notice and administration to ensure that the settlement fund will always be $290,000. The Settlement Class will receive a minimum of $150,000 (of the $290,000 settlement fund). Participating Claimants will divide the class settlement fund pro rata; provided, however, that no Class Member will receive payment from the class settlement fund in an amount to exceed $1,000. The Plaintiffs request that the Class Representatives Scehura, Lill, and Wojdelko receive $3,500 each for their individual claims and as an incentive award for their services as Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs also request that the Class Representative McCarter receive $5,000 for her individual claims and as an incentive award for her services as Class Representative. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, Individual Plaintiffs, Woods, Stockman, and Locke, will each receive $3,500 to resolve their individual lawsuits. KSN does not object to these requests. The Plaintiffs also ask that their counsel receive a total of $114,000, of which $84,000 will be for the Class Lawsuits and $30,000 for the Individual Lawsuits. KSN does not object to this request. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LlYRgrej Plaintiffs Janice McCarter and Krystyna Scehura are represented by: Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq. KMD LAW OFFICE 4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 997-5959 Facsimile: (312) 219-8404 E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com - and - Mark Lavery, Esq. HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC LPA 1100 W. Cermak, Suite B410 Chicago, IL 60608 Telephone: (312) 508-5480 E-mail: mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com Plaintiffs Amy Lill, Christopher Wojdelko, Michael Wood, Alexandria Stockman, and Locke are represented by: M. Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-6160 Facsimile: (312) 698-5054 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com Defendant Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, P.C., is represented by: Jonathan N. Ledsky, Esq. Scott J. Helfand, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 655-1500 Facsimile: (312) 655-1501 E-mail: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com jonathan.ledsky@huschblackwell.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Case Stayed Pending Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was served on June 7, 2012, with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class certification, and the trial court has stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Case Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was served on August 24, 2012, with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District Court's decision which denied class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Defends "Davis" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was served on August 31, 2015, with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LEGEND 72: "Li" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Zhen Hui Li, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Legend 72, LLC, Jia Xing Yang, and Sizhi Li, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06185 (S.D. N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants owned and operated a Chinese restaurant in Manhattan where Li was employed as a kitchen helper. Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 Email: stein@samuelandstein.com - and - Vincent S. Wong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG 39 East Broadway, Suite 306 New York, NY 10002 Tel: (212) 349-6099 Email: vswlaw@gmail.com LTF CLUB: Class Certification Bid in "Bartell" Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Laurence Bartell, et al., the Plaintiff, v. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:14- cv-00401-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael H. Watson granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's revised motion for class certification. The Plaintiff may proceed with a class definition including former members of Defendant's Ohio gyms who cancelled their GTA from April 30, 2012 to present. The Plaintiff claimed in part that Defendant violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by failing to honor membership cancellation notices and refund members' payments as required under Ohio Revised Code. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ITEEi4xG MDL 2159: Court Grants AutoZone Bid to Decertify in Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit re: AutoZone, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Charles R. Breyer entered an order: a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; b. granting Autozone's partial motion for summary judgment as to the PAGA claims and the prejudgment interest; c. denying Autozone's partial motion for summary judgment; d. denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike; e. denying as moot Autozone's motion to strike; f. granting Autozone's motion to decertify; and g. granting Plaintiff Lozacruz's motion to remand his case only. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ikPYEmw0 MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Devera" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cerilina Devera asks that the Court enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled CERILINA DEVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01349-LA (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. The Plaintiff defines the class as (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who were sent a collection letter in the form represented by Exhibit A to the complaint in this action, (c) seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or household purposes, (d) on or after November 11, 2014, (e) that was not returned by the postal service. The Plaintiff contends that the Case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters used by the Defendant to collect consumer debts owed to third parties. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, 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=2EpkEQYa The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. 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 MICHAEL WALTER: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Irvin Ortega, Plaintiff, v. Michael Walter Construction Co., Inc., and Michael C. Walter, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 04715 (D.N.J., August 3, 2016), seeks payment of compensation for all hours and overtime due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants own a construction company in Haworth, Bergen County, NJ, where Plaintiff worked as a laborer. Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, 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 AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com MICHIGAN, USA: Salem Seeks to Certify Class of Female Prisoners --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned AMIRA SALEM and KESHUNA ACUMBY, On behalf of themselves and a, class of others similarly situated v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, & MILLICENT WARREN, Case No. 2:13-cv-14567-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), seek certification of this class of individuals: Current and future female prisoners who, since October 2010, have been incarcerated at the Women's Valley Correctional Facility, and subject to sexual and physical assault and abuse, sexual harassment, and degrading sexually humiliating and unhygienic treatment at the hands of Huron Valley correctional officers and staff. Should the Court certify the class, the Plaintiffs seek appointment of their counsel as class counsel, and seek an order to direct notice to the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The Civil Action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, together with monetary damages against the Defendants for violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cGsiCSjn The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C. 30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 1675 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: (412) 944-2166 Facsimile: (412) 315-7386 E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net - and - Racine Miller, Esq. RACINE MILLER LAW, PLLC 17600 Northland Park Court, Suite 210 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 443-9030 Facsimile: (248) 443-9031 - and - Teresa J. Gorman, Esq. TERESA J. GORMAN, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiffs 363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 223-9922 Facsimile: (248) 223-9933 E-mail: terigorman@aol.com MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: "Eng" Sues Over Sinking and Tilting of Tower ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ENG, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MILLENNIUM PARTNERS I, INC, a California corporation; TRANSBAY JOINT WARRANTIES; POWERS AUTHORITY, a joint powers agency created under California Government Code Section 6500 et seq.; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. CGC-16- 553574 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 9, 2016), arises from the alleged unprecedented sinking and tilting of the Millennium Tower in San Francisco, California. According to the complaint, the 58-floor Millennium is the tallest residential building in San Francisco. Since its completion in 2008, the Millennium has sunk 16 inches and tilted up to 6 inches because of its defective foundation. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority has made the problem worse by digging the biggest hole the City has ever seen in its construction of the Transbay Transit Center next door to the Millennium, the Plaintiff alleges. Mr. Eng contends that the Millennium will continue to sink and tilt, thereby, damaging homes and causing property values to drop in this building. The Plaintiff, who owned a home in the Millennium when it was damaged, brings this action to seek redress on behalf of the class consisting of all homeowners whose individual units in the Millennium were damaged by the construction failures alleged in the complaint. Millennium Partners 1, Inc., is a California corporation doing business in the State of California also as "New York SF Millennium Partners 1, Inc." Transbay Joint Powers Authority is a joint powers agency and a government agency created under the California Government Code. The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald D. Foreman, Esq. FOREMAN & BRASSO 930 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 433-3475 Facsimile: (415) 781-8030 E-mail: foremanandbrasso@foremanandbrasso.com - and - Patrick Catalano, Esq. CATALANO & CATALANO 640 Davis Street, Suite 35 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-0207 E-mail: patrick.catalano@legalcat.com - and - Steven A. Blum, Esq. Gary Ho, Esq. BLUM COLLINS, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 572-0400 E-mail: Blum@BlumCollins.com Ho@BlumCollins.com - and - Mark M. Garay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK M. GARAY 11 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 722-0100 E-mail: garayllc@pacbell.net * * * Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the tallest residential building in San Francisco, the 58-story Millennium Tower, is sinking and listing, residents say -- "an alarming 15-inch tilt at the top of the building" -- and they blame the developer and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which dug "the biggest hole the city has ever seen" right next door. Since the Millennium Tower was completed in 2008, lead plaintiff John Eng says, it has sunk 16 inches. In his August 9 class action in Superior Court, Eng says the developer of the high-end condos skimped on the foundation, and the building could sink another 15 inches. He estimates it is sinking an inch a year. It's also listing to the northwest, Eng says. He sued Millennium Partners 1 and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which he says "has made the problem worse by digging the biggest hole the city has ever seen in its construction of the Transbay Transit Center next door to the Millennium." The giant hole removed lateral support needed to buttress the Millennium's foundation, Eng says. "The tilt at the base of the building translates into an alarming 15-inch tilt at the top of the building," according to the complaint. "Over time the tower most likely will sink and additional 8 to 15 inches into the landfill beneath the building. This means the Millennium could descend a total of 31 inches. The Millennium's tilt also could get worse over time. Eng seeks class certification for all the homeowners in the 419- unit building. He says the developer disclosed potential foundation problems in June 2015. Transbay says the Millennium has tilted 6 inches, according to the complaint. Millennium Tower spokesman P.J. Johnson told Courthouse News: "We are focused on working with the homeowners' association to monitor the situation and take appropriate next steps. We will not comment on pending litigation." Compounding the risk posed by the settling foundation, the building is on what used to be the shore of San Francisco Bay, an area the residents say is susceptible to shaking and liquefaction in an earthquake. "To cut costs, the Millennium was anchored using a concrete slab and 80-foot piles into dense sand, rather than into bedrock 200 feet deep. Combine this with unstable man-made mud fill surrounding the building and you get the recipe for disaster," the complaint states. Liquefaction can occur in an earthquake when loosely compacted soil turns, in effect, into a Jello-like mass. Buildings atop liquefied soil can tear themselves apart by their own weight. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority's 60-foot deep hole, which will become the foundation for the new transit center, was started in 2010. A spokesman for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority did not respond to a request for comment. The residents say the problems have reduced the safety and marketability of their homes and forced them to hire engineers, geologists and lawyers. "The Millennium will continue to sink and tilt, thereby damaging homes and causing property values to drop in this building," the complaint states. Eng et al. accuse Millennium Partners I of violating construction codes, unfair business practices, breach of warranty and strict liability for the defective foundation. They sued the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for inverse condemnation, nuisance and dangerous condition of public property. Their lead attorney is Ronald Foreman, with Foreman & Brassom, assisted by Patrick Catalano, Steven Blum in Los Angeles and Mark Garay in Tiburon. MOJO MEDIA: Faces "Miller" Suit in Southern Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Mojo Media, LLC. The case is captioned Mitchell Miller, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mojo Media, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01983-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. Mojo Media is a healthcare content specialist. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Kazerounian Law Group, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com MOLSON COORS: Still Defends Ontario Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Brewers Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action. The plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market to the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in the amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion. The Company said, "We note that The Beer Store operates according to the rules established by the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and distribution of beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis. Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit." MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a Class Action Securities Litigation. On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to Delaware State Court. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cancellation of Hall of Fame Game Prompts Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that The National Football League was hit with a class-action lawsuit August 11, over the cancellation of this year's Hall of Fame Game, just four days after the game was called off due to unsafe field conditions. Lead plaintiff Alan Biland says he and his wife travelled seven hours from Wisconsin to Canton, Ohio, see the Green Bay Packers take on the Indianapolis Colts in the first NFL preseason game of the year. He says he paid for tickets, travel expenses and $72 for parking, and also bought concessions, before being told the Aug. 7 game was canceled. Biland and three others -- Matthew Crabb, Tiffany Ratcliff and Carmelo Treviso -- filed a class action against the NFL and the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Northern Ohio Federal Court. "Hours before the game was to start, the grounds crew, under the direction and supervision of defendants, applied paint for the midfield logo and endzone lettering onto the field. When the grounds crew determined the paint was not drying quickly enough, they heated the field to try to speed up the process. Instead of rectifying the problem, this resulted in the melting of the rubber pellets that comprise the FieldTurf, creating a large slick, sticky, and congealed areas within the playing surface," the complaint states. Stadium workers tried to apply a substance to fix the problem with the field, but a Packers employee noticed that the substance's label warned of "burns upon skin contact," according to the Aug. 11 lawsuit. "Even though the Colts and Packers were told the game had been cancelled at around 6:40 p.m., on information and belief, defendants purposely told the fans nothing. Instead, the scoreboard continued to tick down to an 8 p.m. kickoff that never happened," the complaint states. "On information and belief, by design, defendants allowed and encouraged fans to continue to purchase food, beverages, and souvenirs at the stadium as they waited for a game that would never start, and defendants did so in the interest of money." The lawsuit alleges the NFL has a history of mismanaging stadiums. "For example, in 2011 the NFL held Super Bowl XLV and placed ticketholders in temporary seats with obstructed views. Other ticketholders were unreasonably delayed, relocated or completely displaced from their seats as a result of the incomplete installation of temporary seats, which were deemed unsafe and unusable by the local fire marshall," the plaintiffs claim. Biland, Crabb, Ratcliff and Treviso brought the lawsuit on behalf of two classes: those who bought tickets to the 2016 NFL Hall of Fame Game, and those who bought tickets "but did not in fact receive seats." The plaintiffs seek at least $5 million for breach of contract. They are represented by Romney Cullers of the Becker Law Firm in Elyria, Ohio, and by Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti in Newport Beach, Calif. The NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment emailed August 12. NCI GROUP: "Jordan" Suit Moved to Central District of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Jordan, individually, and on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NCI Group, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1610804, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01701 to the proceeding. NCI manufactures and distributes metal building components, custom engineered metal building systems, and metal coil coaters. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Malcolm A Heinicke, Esq. Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 560 Mission Street 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512 4000 Facsimile: (415) 512 4077 E-mail: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com NEW YORK TIMES: Unsuccessful Mediation in Worcester Telegram Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that the Company is involved in class action litigation brought on behalf of individuals who, from 2006 to 2011, delivered newspapers at the Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation ("Worcester"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiffs are asserting several claims against Worcester, including a challenge to their classification as independent contractors, and seek unspecified damages. In April 2016, the parties engaged in an unsuccessful mediation process to resolve the litigation. The Company believes that the claims made by the plaintiffs are without merit and continues to vigorously defend its position. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of possible losses at this time. NEWPARK RESOURCES: To Fund Settlement in 3rd & 4th Quarter 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company expects to fund the settlement amount in the Wage and Hour Litigation with installment payments in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. During the second quarter of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Jesse Davida, a former employee, in Federal Court in Texas against Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to properly classify its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA and pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly situated employees. The Court conditionally certified a class of plaintiffs as those working as fluid service technicians for Newpark Drilling Fluids for the prior three years. Notification was given to 658 current and former fluid service technician employees of Newpark regarding this litigation and those individuals were given the opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida litigation. The opt-in period closed in early May of 2015 and a total of 91 individuals joined the Davida litigation. Counsel for the plaintiffs moved to add state law class action claims for current and former fluid service technicians that worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids in New York, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Court granted the motion but gave Newpark the right to file a motion to dismiss these state law claims, and that motion is pending. At this point in the litigation, the parties began settlement discussions, resulting in the settlement agreement. A second case was filed by Josh Christensen in the fourth quarter of 2014 in Federal Court in Texas alleging that individuals treated as independent contractors should have been classified as employees and, as such, are entitled to assert claims for alleged violations of the FLSA (similar to the claims asserted in the Davida matter). Five additional plaintiffs joined this litigation after it was filed. In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and have now filed individual cases for each of the original opt-in plaintiffs plus two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight independent contractor cases pending. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the Davida case. The Company said, "Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the pending wage and hour litigation cases. . . . Following mediation in January of 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement in April 2016 to settle all of the pending matters, subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Court in the Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases (Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases). Subject to these conditions, current and former fluid service technician employees that are eligible for the settlement will be notified of the pending resolution and given an opportunity to participate in the settlement. The amount paid to any eligible individual will vary based on a formula that takes into account the number of workweeks and salary for the individual during the time period covered by the settlement (which can vary based upon several factors). Any eligible individual that elects to participate in the settlement will release all wage and hour claims against the Company." "As a result of the settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0 million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the pending resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. We expect to fund the settlement amount with installment payments in the third and fourth quarters of 2016, subject to the conditions. . . . The settlement fund will be administered by a third party who will make payments to eligible individuals that elect to participate in accordance with a formula incorporated into the settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, if settlement funds remain after all payments are made to eligible individuals that elect to participate in the settlement, such excess amount will be shared by the participating individuals and Newpark Drilling Fluids. The amount of excess funds, if any, is not currently determinable." NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "David" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is styled Fraidy David, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04383 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2016). Northland Group is a debt collector. The Plaintiff appears pro se. NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued ---------------------------------------------------------- According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 8, 2016, in the lawsuit styled Dennis Ceragioli, the Plaintiff, v. Northwest Collectors Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07706 (N.D. Ill.), class certification is entered and continued to the date of the initial status hearing. No appearance required on August 9, 2016. The Hon. Sara L. Ellis presides over the case. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lA9rN3mq OMNICARE INC: Aug. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the district court is scheduled to hear oral argument on Omnicare's motion to dismiss on August 23, 2016. In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. In December 2015, Omnicare filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint. The district court is scheduled to hear oral argument on Omnicare's motion to dismiss on August 23, 2016. OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Vaccaro Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the Enrico Vaccaro class action lawsuit have filed an amended class action complaint. On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners, L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units ("NSLP Complaint"). Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as certain officers and directors of NSLP, and underwriters Oppenheimer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities, Inc. Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus, filed with the SEC on May 7, 2015, and the base prospectus and shelf registration statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21, 2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents"). The NSLP Complaint alleged that the NSLP Offering Documents failed to disclose certain cash flow problems facing NSLP and sought damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On or around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state court action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP filed with the SDNY notice of its March 15, 2016 voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which operates as an automatic stay of the claims as to NSLP. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint ("NSLP Amended Complaint"), which seeks unspecified damages, including interest, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as rescission. Underwriter Defendants, including Oppenheimer, believe they have meritorious defenses to the NSLP Amended Complaint. OSRAM SYLVANIA: August 31 Settlement Approval Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- A proposed Canada-wide Settlement has been negotiated in class actions relating to the marketing and sales of Osram Sylvania Premium Automotive Lighting. If approved by the Courts, this Settlement will provide benefits to purchasers of the following "Covered Products": -- SilverStar ULTRA, SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue replacement headlight capsules; -- SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue sealed beam headlights; or -- SilverStar fog or auxiliary lights. You may be a Class Member if you purchased a Covered Product in Canada from September 22, 2005 until December 31, 2014. The lawsuits claim that Osram Sylvania, Inc., Osram Sylvania Products, Inc. and Osram Sylvania, Ltd. ("Sylvania") misrepresented that certain replacement automotive lighting is brighter, provides a wider beam and allows drivers to see farther down the road than standard halogen lighting. It also claims that Sylvania omitted material information regarding the reduced life of the replacement lighting. Sylvania denies that it did anything wrong. The Courts did not decide which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle. A Settlement Amount of not less than CDN $1,150,000 (the "Settlement Fund Minimum") and not more than CDN $1,750,000 (the "Settlement Cap Maximum") is intended to pay claims to eligible Class Members, Notice Costs, Claims Administration Fees and Expenses, Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, and Honorarium Awards to the Representative Plaintiffs. In addition, Sylvania has also modified certain product(s) packaging. Full details about the Settlement are available on the Settlement Website at www.autolightclaims.ca Individual Class Member may qualify for Compensation for one of the following, irrespective of how many products have been purchased: Covered Products Initial Amount Maximum Amount SilverStar ULTRA, SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue replacement headlight capsule $12.00 $24.00 SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue sealed beam headlights $12.00 $24.00 Pre-Approval Notice SilverStar fog or auxiliary lights $12.00 $24.00 For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, payment as described above will be issued, so long as providing such Compensation does not exceed the Settlement Cap Maximum. If providing each Claimant with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement Cap Maximum, then in such circumstances each Claimant's Compensation shall be reduced on a pro-rata basis. To receive Compensation, eligible Class Members must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator through the Settlement Website, by email, or by mail. The Claim Form only takes 3-5 minutes to complete. No proof of purchase is necessary. The Claim Form is already available on the Settlement Website at www.autolightclaims.ca or you can obtain one by contacting the Claims Administrator at 1-855-745-7374. You should act as quickly as possible, ideally you should do so before the date of the Settlement Approval Hearings, which will further extend the deadline. A definite Claim Deadline will be set if and when the Settlement is approved by the Courts. Please consult the Settlement Website for an update of the delays that will be set by the Courts. If you are a Class Member, you may (1) send in a Claim Form; (2) object to the settlement; (3) exclude yourself (Opt-Out); or (4) do nothing. If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must opt-out. To do so, you must complete and submit an Opt-Out Form to the Claims Administrator. The manner in which you opt-out is available on the form found on the Settlement Website; the delay to do so will be set by the Courts. Residents of Quebec must in addition give notice to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec. Anyone who opts out cannot object to the Settlement, will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement, and will not be eligible to claim benefits under the Agreement, but may be eligible to pursue an individual claim. To object to or to make representations regarding this proposed Settlement, you must attend one of the Settlement Approval Hearings. You should also notify the Claims Administrator in writing through the website, by email or by mail at least 15-days before the hearing and provide your reasons summarily. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec will hold hearings to consider whether to approve the Settlement. Each of the Courts must be satisfied that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of Class Members. Settlement Approval Hearings have been scheduled as follows: Ontario Action (for Canadian residents other than Quebec) - August 31, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. at the Courthouse located at 1023 King St., L'Orignal, Ontario. Quebec Action (for Quebec residents) - August 30, 2016 at 9:15 A.M. at the Montreal Courthouse located at 1 Notre-Dame St. East, Montreal, Quebec. Please check the Settlement Website to confirm these dates, as they are subject to change. You do not have to attend the hearings but you may do so if you wish. However, you must do so if you wish to object or make representations regarding the Settlement. Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for Compensation at the earliest starting on January 29, 2017, assuming that the Settlement is approved and that such order/judgment has become final and binding. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and detailed information on how to obtain or file a Claim, Opt-Out or Object on the Settlement Website at www.autolightclaims.ca For any other information, please contact the Claims Administrator at: Bruneau Group Inc. Nelson P.O. 20187 - 322 Rideau St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5Y5 Tel: 1-855-745-7374 Email: info@autolightclaims.ca Class Counsel, or the law firms representing the Plaintiffs, are the following: Consumer Law Group P.C. 251 Laurier Ave. West, Suite 900 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J6 jorenstein@clg.org Consumer Law Group Inc. 1030 rue Berri, Suite 102 Montreal, Quebec H2L 4C3 agrass@clg.org The Courts will also consider a request from Class Counsel for counsel fees, disbursements and taxes. Class Counsel has pursued this lawsuit wholly on a contingency basis and has agreed that they would only be paid their legal fees if there was a Settlement or recovery following a successful outcome. They will seek approval from the Courts of $525,000 plus applicable taxes, which will be paid for from the Settlement Amount. The Plaintiffs will also seek honorarium payments of $5,000 each. To remain updated and to find out the deadlines to file a claim or opt-out, please consult the Settlement Website. This Notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec. PARK PLUS: "Dorie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Mohan Dorie, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Park Plus Valet Service LLC, Case No. 605034/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Park Plus Valet Service LLC owns and operates a valet services company located at 124-10 S Conduit Ave., South Ozone Park, NY 11420. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 PETERSAN LEGAL TEMPS: "Hoffman" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Hoffman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Petersan Legal Temps, Inc. D/B/A The Petersan Group, Sandrea Friedman, in her individual capacity, Peter Goldfeder, in his individual capacity, and Peter Gosule, in his individual capacity, Defendants., Case No. 1:16-cv-06175 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendant provides recruiting and staffing services for the legal profession in New York State with principal executive offices as 1450 Broadway #1501, New York, New York, 10018 with Peter Goldfeder is owner and Chief Executive Officer and Friedman and Gosule as managing partners. Plaintiff was hired in a sales and administrative position. Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky, Esq. CHARNY & ASSOCIATES 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Tel: (845) 876-7500 Fax: (845) 876-7501 Email: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com eledkovsky@charnyandassociates.com PHH CORP: Faces "Munoz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against PHH Corp. The case is captioned Efrain Munoz, Leona Lovette, Stephanie Melani, John Hoffman, and Daniel Maga, II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Movants, v. PHH Corp, PHH Mortgage Corp., PHH Home Loans, LLC, and Atrium Insurance Corp., the Respondents, Case No. 5:16-mc-00032-RN (E.D.N.C., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II. PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage services to some of the world's largest financial services firms. The Movants appear pro se. PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Yaqoob" Seeks Damages for Loss of Earnings ------------------------------------------------------------- RASHID YAQOOB, 2602 Society Place Newtown, PA 18940, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 1515 Arch Street, 14 Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102, the Defendant, Case No. 160701981 (Phil. Cty. Ct., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover damages including financial expenses, damages and/or losses, including but not limited to loss of earnings, earning capacity and/or medical expenses, as well as further non- economic losses. On June 23, 2015, at 6:00 P.M., the Plaintiff was sitting in his car at or near 1379 Pratt Street and 5200 Penn St in Philadelphia, PA 19124, when a tree located on and of McHvain Playground a/k/a Frankford Playground fell on his car. Mcllvain is owned/controlled/possessed/maintained by the City of Philadelphia. The incident resulted in Plaintiff sustaining severe and permanent orthopedic and neurological injuries. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff will continue to sustain medical bills, surgical costs, hospital charges for the remainder of his life, all to his great and continuing detriment and loss. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter C. Bowers, Esq. Alexander J. Ginsburg, Esq. PETER BOWERS, P.C. 441 North 5 Street, Suite 201 Philadelphia, PA 19123 Telephone: (215) 440 0300 Facsimile: (215) 440 8390 E-mail: peter@peterbowerspc.com alex@peterbowerspc.com civil@peterbowerspc.com PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Cox" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Porsche Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned Steven Michael Cox, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Porsche Financial Services, Inc., Porsche Leasing Ltd., and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23409-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Darrin P. Gayles. Porsche Financial provides leasing and financing products for Porsche in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Peter Weil, Esq. Mark A Schweikert, Esq. RONALD WEIL PA Wachovia Financial Center Suite 900 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372 5352 Facsimile: (305) 372 5355 E-mail: RWeil@weilquaranta.net mschweikert@shb.com PORTER MCGUIRE: Faces "Brown" Suit in District of Hawaii -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP. The case is captioned Benita J. Brown, Kristine Connelly, and Craig Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP, a Hawai'i limited liability partnership, as individual entities; Ekimoto & Morris, LLLC a Hawai'i limited liability law company, as individual entities; AOAO Terrazza/Corbella/Las Brisas/Tiburon, as individual entities and on behalf of all others similarly situated; The Association of Apartment Owners of Terrazza/Cortbella/Las Brisas/Tiburon; AOAO Ko Olina Kai Golf Estates and Villas, a Hawai'i corporation, as individual entities and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Association of Apartment Owners of Ko Olina Kai Golf Estates and Villas; and Doe Defendants 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00448-KJM-NONE (D. Haw., Aug. 10, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Kenneth J. Mansfield. Porter McGuire is a law firm with extensive experience and knowledge in condominium and community association law, and real estate, construction, and commercial litigation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chanelle M.C. Fujimotom, Esq. Michael L. Iosua, Esq. Steven K.S. Chung, Esq. IMANAKA ASATO, LLLC Amfac Center Hawaii Tower 745 Fort St 17th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 521-9500 Facsimile: 541-9050 E-mail: cfujimoto@imanaka-asato.com miosua@imanaka-asato.com Eschung@imanaka-asato.com QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Cicero, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Quality Dining, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00512, (N.D. Ind., August 4, 2016), seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages, prejudgement interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates 46 Chili's Grill and Bar franchise restaurants all over the U.S. where Plaintiff worked as a server in their Delran, New Jersey location. Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Chester, Esq. CHESTER LAW OFFICE 230 N. Main St., Suite 2 Elkhart, IN 46516 Tel: (574) 296-1515 Fax: (574) 295-9316 Email: ed@chesterlawoffice.com - and - Jerry Martin, Esq. Seth Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN AND GARRISON LLC 414 Union St., Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 - and - Andrew Santillo, Esq. R. Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Rd #211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com QUALITY SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Case Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the Plaintiffs' appeal in a federal securities class action. The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on January 5, 2015. "On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. "Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral argument is not yet scheduled. "We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim." RAWLINGS COMPANY: Perez Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------- Ms. Catherine Perez moves the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit styled CATHERINE PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1065 (E.D. Wis.). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u54ZWlvM 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 RAYONIER ADVANCED: Wins Final Judgment in Stockholders Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2016, that the court has granted final judgment in favor of the Company and all other defendants in the stockholder litigation. On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and Benson K. Woo. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 11, 2015 and, subsequently, the case against Mr. Ruperto was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The case is a purported class action alleging securities laws violations, primarily related to claims the Company failed to record adequate environmental liabilities related to disposed operations, which the plaintiffs allege led to a decrease in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015. The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint in its entirety and, at a hearing on April 20, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to file another amended complaint by a deadline set by the court. The plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by the court- imposed deadline and did not appeal the court's April 20 dismissal of the complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, on July 25, 2016 the court granted final judgment in favor of the Company and all other defendants. No money was paid to the plaintiffs or their counsel in connection with the dismissal of the case and final judgment. RED GRANITE: Owner Misappropriated Money, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that on the heels of a forfeiture action linked to the 2013 film "The Wolf of Wall Street," Riza Aziz, owner of Red Granite Pictures and stepson of Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak, faces a federal class action in Manhattan saying he misappropriated money from a sovereign wealth fund of Malaysia. REVLON INC: 5 Class Suits Filed over Elizabeth Arden Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Revlon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that following Revlon, Inc.'s and Products Corporation's announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement by and among Revlon, Inc., Products Corporation, Acquisition Sub and Elizabeth Arden, pursuant to which, among other things, Acquisition Sub will merge with and into Elizabeth Arden, five putative shareholder class action lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit have been filed challenging the Merger. On June 24, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit (Parker v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc. et al., Case No. CACE-16-011781) (referred to as the "Parker complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Elizabeth Arden, the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general, the Parker complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an allegedly unfair process and at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger, compensatory damages, rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 29, 2016, a putative shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit (Christiansen v. Rh“ne Capital L.L.C. et al., Case No. CACE-16-011746) (referred to as the "Christiansen complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Rh“ne Capital L.L.C. ("Rh“ne"), Nightingale Onshore Holdings L.P. and Nightingale Offshore Holdings L.P. (collectively, "Nightingale"), the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general, the Christiansen complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the holders of Elizabeth Arden's common stock and to Elizabeth Arden by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to a flawed process that placed the interests of the holders of Elizabeth Arden's preferred stock ahead of the interests of Elizabeth Arden and the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock; (ii) Rh“ne and Nightingale, an alleged controlling shareholder of Elizabeth Arden, breached its alleged fiduciary duties to the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock and to Elizabeth Arden by forcing Elizabeth Arden to agree to the allegedly unfair terms of the Merger; and (iii) Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors to the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock and to Elizabeth Arden. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger, a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties owed to Elizabeth Arden and holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Rh“ne, and Nightingale, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On July 19, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Ross v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013220) (referred to as the "Ross complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Elizabeth Arden, the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general the Ross complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's public shareholders by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an allegedly inadequate and unfair sale process and at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price depriving Elizabeth Arden's public shareholders of the true value of their investment and diverting consideration to themselves; and (ii) Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation knowingly assisted, and aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger, compensatory damages or rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On July 25, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Stein v. Rh“ne Capital L.L.C., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013580) (referred to as the "Stein complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Rh“ne, Nightingale, the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general, the Stein complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an allegedly flawed process and placing the interests of the holders of Elizabeth Arden's preferred stock over those of the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock; (ii) Rh“ne and Nightingale, an alleged controlling shareholder of Elizabeth Arden, breached its alleged fiduciary duties to the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by compelling Elizabeth Arden and the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors to approve the Merger and agree to allegedly unfavorable terms in the Merger Agreement; and (iii) Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Rh“ne and Nightingale to the detriment of Elizabeth Arden's public shareholders. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger, a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Rh“ne and Nightingale, rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company believes the allegations contained in the Parker complaint, the Christiansen complaint, the Ross complaint, the Hutchinson complaint and the Stein complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Faces "Ozone" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Richard Sokoloff, Attorney at Law. The case is captioned Raymond Ozone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Richard Sokoloff, Attorney at Law, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). Richard Sokoloff Attorney At Law is a law firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com RUSHMORE LOAN: Bovin et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- Steven Bovin and Lori Bovin move the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit styled STEVEN BOVIN and LORI BOVIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 16- cv-1055 (E.D. Wis.). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MIqc3iNA 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 RUSSAW TRANSPORT: "Mendenhall" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Donnie Mendenhall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Russaw Transport, LLC and Steve Russaw, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-285, (W.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be necessary. Russaw Transport, LLC is a Texas-based corporation owned by Steve Russaw where Plaintiff worked as a driver. He claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor thus denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 SABRE CORPORATION: NY Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted, in part, the Company's motion to dismiss a consumer class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim." "In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a final judgment. We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims." SANDBOX LOGISTICS: "Power" Suit to Recover Backpay, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Power and Cody Fruge, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Sandbox Logistics, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01978 (D. Colo., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover backpay, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, compensatory damages, service awards, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, pre- judgment, post-judgment and moratory interest, liquidated damages and/or statutory penalties and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Sandbox is an oilfield service company delivering sand to drilling sites at locations in Texas, Colorado, West Virginia and North Dakota. Plaintiff worked for Sandbox providing inspection, yard hand and forklift services in Weld County, Colorado. He claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel: (970) 214-0562 Fax: (303) 539-9812 Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Select Comfort Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the Saeid Azimpour class suit lawsuit has filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the California unfair competition law, violation of the California false advertising law and violation of the California remedies act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who "purchased one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a discount from the original retail price at any time between December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees. On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On July 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. "We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend this case," the Company said. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bacardi" Suit in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The case is captioned Kimberly Bacardi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., doing business as SPS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23381-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr. Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Court Edward Keeley, Esq. Jacobs Keeley, Esq. 169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1620 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358 7991 Keeley@Jakelegal.com - and - Darren R. Newhart, Esq. Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 692 6013 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com darren@cloorg.com - and - James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463 2101 Facsimile: (202) 463 2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com SHIVA ESTATE: Class Certification Sought in "Jaffer" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned FATIMA JAFFER, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. SHIVA ESTATE, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice. The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Jaffer contends that she filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated alleging that she and the other hourly-paid laborers at the Defendant's Winter Haven, Florida facility were deprived of proper overtime wages and unpaid wages by virtue of the Defendant requiring them to work without compensation for all of the hours worked to the full extent provide by law. Shiva Estate is a domestic, for-profit Corporation that operates hotel(s), including but not limited to operating offices and at least one location in Winter Haven, Florida. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HMqijyTV The Plaintiff is represented by: W. John Gadd, Esg. LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA Bank of America Building 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com - and - Kyle J. Lee, Esq. LEE LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 4476 Brandon, FL 33509-4476 Telephone: (813) 343-2813 E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in Lacey-Siegried Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a response denying allegations in the case, Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation. A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. The Company has filed a response denying these allegations. SPRING LIVING: "Thomas" Wants to Recover Withheld Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- OFELIA THOMAS, an individual v. SPRING LIVING, INC., a corporation; TRINIDAD TRINIDAD, an individual and DOES I through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC630063 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, those similarly situated, and the general public to restore monies withheld, acquired, or converted by the Company, including wages earned and unpaid. The Plaintiff also alleges sex discrimination and harassment. Spring Living is a corporation with headquarters and principal place of business located in California. Trinidad Trinidad is an adult resident of the County of Los Angeles, in California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Company's primary business consists of providing various services, including housing, food, clothing, medical care, transportation and close supervision for its developmentally disabled clientele. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen F. Danz, Esq. STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES 11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 207-4568 Facsimile: (310) 388-0529 E-mail: sfdanz@aol.com - and - Brian I. Vogel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL 572 E. Green Street, Suite 305 Pasadena, CA 911 0 1 Telephone: (626) 796-7470 Facsimile: (626) 796-7474 E-mail: Vogellawfirm@yahoo.com ST LOUIS COUNTY: 13 Cities Sued Over De Facto Debtors' Prisons -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action in St. Louis accuses 13 St. Louis County cities of putting black people in de facto debtors' prisons because they can't afford to pay traffic tickets and fines for other petty offenses. Quinton Thomas and 12 other named plaintiffs sued St. Ann, Edmundson, Normandy, Cool Valley, Velda City, Beverly Hills, Pagedale, Calverton Park, St. John, Bel-Ridge, Wellston, Velda Village Hills and Bellefontaine Neighbors. All are in north St. Louis County. "In 2015 alone, the defendant municipalities issued an average of 1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for every adult, mostly for allegedly unpaid debt in connection with tickets supposedly involving traffic violations and other petty offenses," the complaint states. The plaintiffs say they were "locked in a cage" solely because they couldn't afford cash payment for minor violations. "And each was left to languish in filthy, often overcrowded jail cells because he or she could not afford to pay the jacked-up fines, penalties, and other charges that defendants assessed," the complaint states. "Defendants did not inquire about, much less accommodate, the hardships their extortionate demands placed on plaintiffs and their families. Nor did defendants offer to provide plaintiffs with counsel who could advise them of their rights or otherwise protect them from defendants' predatory scheme." The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed in February 2015 against nearby Ferguson and Jennings. Those class actions spurred reforms in those cities' courts. The Ferguson and Jennings class actions were filed by an attorney with Equal Justice Under Law, in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with St. Louis-based ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit, and by St. Louis University School of Law. This latest class action was filed by Thomas Harvey with ArchCity Defenders. All the class actions stem from the protests after Michael Brown's death. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white, on Aug. 9, 2014. Protesters voiced concerns about policing in black communities and the cities using the court system as a revenue generator on the backs of poor black people. The latest class action says this "extraordinary abuse of government authority" starts with the over-policing of poor black communities, which causes excessive citations for traffic and other municipal violations. The citations are followed by "arbitrary fines, penalties, surcharges, and interest charges that pile up like debts to a loan-shark, arrest warrants auto-generated without good cause or even a semblance of due process, and imprisonment -- imposed without assistance of counsel -- in squalid debtors' prisons," the complaint states. The plaintiffs claim the system disproportionately targets blacks, places their jobs at risk and leaves their children without supervision. They seek unspecified damages and an injunction. STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------- Star Gas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Partnership's motion to dismiss a class action complaint has been fully briefed and no decision has been issued yet. On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleges he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserts various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law and fraud. The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them. No class has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts. On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. The motion was fully briefed and submitted to the court on July 12, 2016 and no decision has been issued yet. The Partnership believes the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the action; at this time we cannot assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter. STARZ LLC: 6 Class Actions Commenced in Delaware Chancery Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Starz LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that six putative class action complaints were commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on July 19, 2016, July 21, 2016, July 26, 2016, July 27, 2016 and July 29, 2016. The first complaint was filed on July 19, 2016, by Barbara Freedman against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, members of the board of directors of Starz, and John C. Malone and Robert R. Bennett, both of whom are alleged to be controlling stockholders of Starz. The first complaint alleges that (i) the members of Starz's board of directors and Messrs. Malone and Bennett breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A Common Stock in connection with the Merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and (ii) Lions Gate, Merger Sub and Messrs. Malone and Bennett aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The first lawsuit seeks, among other things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) a judgment declaring that Starz's board of directors, and Messrs. Malone and Bennett, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Starz and Starz's Series A unaffiliated stockholders; (iii) rescission of the proposed Merger, or any terms thereof, to the extent already implemented, or granting of rescissory damages; (iv) an accounting by the Starz board of directors, and Messrs. Malone and Bennett, of the damages the class suffered as a result of their actions with respect to the Merger; and (v) an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The second and third complaints were filed on July 21, 2016 and July 26, 2016, by the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System and the City of Cambridge Retirement System, respectively. Both complaints name the same defendants, make the same allegations, assert the same legal claims, and seek the same relief. Both complaints name as defendants Lions Gate, Merger Sub, the members of the Starz board of directors, Mr. Malone, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Deborah J. Bennett and Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"). Starz is not a named defendant in either lawsuit. Each complaint alleges that (i) the members of Starz's board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and its stockholders in connection with the Merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement; (ii) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder of Starz, breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's minority stockholders in connection with the Merger and by entering into the Stock Exchange Agreement with Lions Gate, Merger Sub, Ms. Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett and Hilltop (the "Exchange Agreement") and a Voting Agreement among Lions Gate and Messrs. Malone and Bennett (the "Voting Agreement"); and (iii) Lions Gate, Merger Sub, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett and Hilltop aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. Each lawsuit seeks, among other things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) a judgment declaring that the board of directors of Starz and Mr. Malone breached fiduciary duties owed to the class; (iii) a judgment declaring that Lions Gate and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) a judgment declaring the Exchange Agreement is invalid and void; (v) an injunction to prevent the Merger from proceeding; (v) alternatively, if the Merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory or other compensatory damages; and (vi) an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The fourth complaint was filed on July 26, 2016, by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis against Lions Gate, Merger Sub, the members of the Starz board of directors, Mr. Malone, Ms. Malone, The Tracy L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett and Hilltop. The fourth complaint alleges that (i) the members of Starz's board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's stockholders in connection with the Merger, (ii) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder of Starz, breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's minority stockholders by effectuating the Merger; (iii) Lions Gate and Merger Sub, as parties to the Merger, aided and abetted in such breaches of fiduciary duties; and (iv) by entering into the Exchange Agreement and the Voting Agreement, Ms. Malone, The Tracy L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett and Hilltop aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties of the members of Starz's board of directors. The fourth lawsuit seeks injunctive relief: (i) declaring that the action is a proper class action and certifying the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis as the class representative; (ii) declaring that the members of Starz's board of directors and Mr. Malone breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the class; (iii) declaring that Lions Gate and Merger Sub aided and abetted in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the Merger; (v) directing the members of Starz's board of directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that maximizes stockholder value; (vi) declaring the Exchange Agreement invalid and void; (vii) if the Merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory or other compensatory damages; and (viii) an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The fifth complaint was filed on July 27, 2016 by the Norfolk County Retirement System against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, members of the board of directors of Starz, Mr. Malone, Ms. Malone, Tracey L. Neal Trust A, Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett, Hilltop, and LionTree Advisors LLC ("LionTree"). The fifth complaint alleges that (i) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder of Starz, and as a director and alleged significant stockholder of Lions Gate, violated his fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to Starz's public stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger; (ii) Mr. Malone, Starz Chief Executive Officer Chris Albrecht, and the members of the board of directors of Starz breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and its stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger; (iii) Lions Gate, as a party to the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and Merger Sub, as a party to the Merger Agreement, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) LionTree, by virtue of its position as financial advisor in connection with the proposed Merger, aided and abetted in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) as parties to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, Ms. Malone, Tracey L. Neal Trust A, Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett, and Hilltop aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The fifth lawsuit seeks, among other things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) an injunction preventing the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone from proceeding with the proposed Merger under its current terms; (iii) a declaration that the proposed Merger is not entirely fair and that the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone have breached their fiduciary duties and therefore the Merger Agreement and transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are unlawful and unenforceable; (iv) if the Merger is consummated, rescission of the transaction or an award of damages to the class; (v) a requirement that the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone fully disclose material information regarding the Merger; (vi) the establishment of equitable quasi-appraisal rights for dissenting Starz shareholders; (vii) a requirement that the board of directors of Starz explore strategic alternatives to the proposed Merger; (viii) an accounting by the defendants of the damages the class allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' alleged unlawful conduct; (ix) an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The sixth complaint was filed on July 29, 2016 by the City of Providence against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, members of the board of directors of Starz, Mr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, and Mark Rachesky, the Chairman of Lions Gate. The sixth complaint alleges that (i) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder of Starz, and the members of the board of Starz, breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's shareholders in connection with the proposed Merger; and (ii) Mr. Bennett, Mr. Rachesky, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted both Mr. Malone and the Starz board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties, while Mr. Malone aided and abetted the Starz board of directors in breaching its fiduciary duties. The sixth lawsuit seeks, among other things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) a declaration that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted such breaches; (iii) a declaration that the proposed Merger and other transactions contemplated by the merger are unlawful and unenforceable; (iv) an accounting by the defendants of the damages the class allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' alleged wrongful actions; (v) compensatory damages; and (vi) an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Starz intends to defend the actions vigorously. STONE & TILE: Faces "Cohetero" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Stone and Tile Inc. The case is captioned Daniel Cohetero, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stone and Tile Inc., Jointly and Severally; Y & L NY Interiors Inc., Jointly and Severally; Granite Realty Corp., Jointly and Severally; Lazer Mechlovitz, Jointly and Severally; and Nachman Mechlovitz, Jointly and Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04420 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). Stone and Tile sells natural stone tiles and mosaics. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SUBWAY 39077: "Aguiar" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Yirandi Aguiar, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Subway 39077 Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, individually and Timothy E. Johnson, Individually, the Defendant, Case No. 16-016258-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16- cv-23399-RNS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 808 2100 Facsimile: (305) 808 2101 E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com TED BAKER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Ted Baker Limited, Inc. The case is captioned Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ted Baker Limited, Inc., doing business as Ted Baker, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-23370-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Kathleen M. Williams. Ted Baker is a British luxury clothing retail company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos R. Diaz, Esq. STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC. LAW GROUP, LLC 437 Grant Street, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 765 3345 Facsimile: (412) 765 3346 E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Registered Nurses' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' allegations in the antitrust class action lawsuit filed by registered nurses in San Antonio. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery. The Company said, "We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations. Because these proceedings remain at an early stage, it is impossible at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." TEXTPLUS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sloatman" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- John Sloatman III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Textplus Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06012-BRO-SK (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Textplus Inc. provides cellphone use services for consumers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com THACATTACK INC: "King" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Chrystal King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chandra Brown d/b/a The Jungle, Brad Roberts d/b/a The Jungle, Thacattack, Inc., d/b/a The Jungle, and Randy Preciado d/b/a The Jungle, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-171 (N.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants employed Plaintiffs as entertainers at an adult entertainment club in Amarillo known as The Jungle. Plaintiff claims her only compensation was tips from patrons. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Collin J. Wynne, Esq. YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Tel: (806) 331-1800 Fax: (806) 398-9095 Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com Collin@youngfirm.com TNJ ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against TNJ Enterprises Inc. The case is captioned LUINY GOMEZ, EDICKSON GARCIA, JULIAN VASQUEZ, and RAMON HIDALGO, On behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TNJ ENTERPRISES INC., doing business as DOMINO'S PIZZA, FRANK LAZAUSKUS, and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04824 (D.N.J., Aug. 8, 2016). TNJ Enterprise is a bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. TORN & GLASSER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Rodriguez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- IRENE RODRIGUEZ an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TORN & GLASSER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC630147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 9, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to provide required meal periods and rest periods, and to pay overtime and minimum wages, among other failures. Torn & Glasser is a California corporation and maintains offices and facilities in the County of Los Angeles, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Braunson C. Virjee, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310)531-1901 E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com TOTAL MERCHANT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in "Shulruff" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 11, 2016, in the case styled Dr. Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. Total Merchant Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02386 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that pursuant to a stipulation dated May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without prejudice. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l3kc8NS7 TROTT LAW: Court Tossed Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David M. Lawson entered an order dismissing without prejudice The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN J. MARTIN, YAHMI NUNDLEY, and KATHLEEN CADEAU v. TROTT LAW, P.C. and DAVID A. TROTT, Case No. 2:15-cv-12838-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.). According to the Order, "[o]n October 19, 2015, shortly after they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and to set a schedule for delayed briefing on that motion. However, on December 2, 2015, the Court stayed all discovery in the case pending its decision on the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part those motions on July 26, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Court held a scheduling conference with the parties and advised them that it would set deadlines for them to complete discovery and for the plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification, once they have the information required properly to determine the scope of the proposed class. The Court advised the plaintiffs that it therefore would dismiss without prejudice their pre-discovery class certification motion." Judge Lawson, accordingly, ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify is dismissed without prejudice, subject to the Plaintiff's right to file a renewed motion for class certification on or before the deadline set by the Court. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pMuouBzV TURNER OIL: Stanley et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN STANLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. TURNER OIL & GAS, and PROPERTIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00386-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court for conditional certification of: "all current and former Petroleum Land Managers or individuals in a Landman position who worked for Turner at any location in the United States and, at any time during the period three years before each opts-in this action, who were suffered or permitted to work more than 40 hours in a given workweek and not compensated at a rate of one-and-one- half times regular hourly pay for hours worked in excess of 40." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs further move the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for: (1) expedited discovery of the names and contact information for all members of the proposed collective action; and (2) authorization to send to those potential opt-in Plaintiffs the notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5hWxEXiU The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward R. Forman, Esq. Samuel M. Schlein, Esq. John S. Marshall, Esq. MARSHALL AND MORROW LLC 250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480 Columbus, OH 43215-5296 Telephone: (614) 463 9790 Facsimile: (614) 463 9780 E-mail: eforman@marshallandmorrow.com jmarshall@marshallandmorrow.com sschlein@marshallandmorrow.com - and - Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq. 230 Durand St Pickerington, OH 43147 Telephone: (614) 949 9749 Facsimile: (614) 321 3964 E-mail: MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com - and - Louis A. Jacobs, Esq. E-mail: LAJOhio@aol.com 177 19th St., Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (614) 203 1255 Facsimile: (510) 250 9007 TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Wandel" Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, et al., Docket No. C- 000010-16, was filed on March 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of New Jersey naming Tyco, the individual members of its board of directors, Johnson Controls and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaint alleges that Tyco's directors breached their fiduciary duties and exercised their powers as directors in a manner oppressive to the public shareholders of Tyco in violation of Irish law by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value and failing to protect against purported conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges that Tyco, Johnson Controls and Merger Sub aided and abetted Tyco's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted by the complaint are not valid. TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Laufer" Action in Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyco International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson Controls, the individual members of its board of directors, Tyco and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaint alleges that Johnson Controls' directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and failing to disclose material information in this joint proxy statement/prospectus. The complaint further alleges that Tyco aided and abetted Johnson Controls' directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted by the complaint are not valid. UNILEVER UNITED: Fleming's Class Cert. Bid Is Moot, Court Says -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 11, 2016, in the case entitled Virgil Fleming, et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06117 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's original motion to certify class is moot. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dQ2yba6K VALVE CORP: "McLeod" Sues Over Unregulated Video Gaming ------------------------------------------------------- Michael John McLeod, Peter Kamenkovich, Andrew Punzak, Justin Chandler, Michael Alphin, TimothyWoelper, Daniel Kim, Ryan Ford, Jacob Williard, Ryan Klimt, Mitchell Gunter, Jacob Phillips, Dakota Barney, Nicholas Mora, Vincent Cianfaglione, Dylan Latvis, Levi Ledbetter, Daniel Spann, Jake Bohl, Rahul Malhotra, Bradford Daniels, Scott Hallman, Jared Conley, Kevin Ryan, Isaac Lynn, Sam Keller, Dominic Allen, Samuel Joines, Nicholas Crain, Christopher Calvi, J.J., L.O., L.L., K.M., S.S., G.G., G.L., A.D., G.M., P.L., P.S., A.L., N.M., and K.M. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Valve Corporation, a Washington corporation, CSGOLOTTO Inc., a Florida corporation, Opskins Group, Inc., a Canadian corporation, James Varga, A Nevada individual, Phantomlord Inc., A Nevada Corporation, CSGO Shuffle, A European Company, Trevor A. Martin, a Florida individual, and Thomas Cassell, California individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-01227 (W.D. Wash., August 4, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, retrospective and prospective injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of state gambling statutes and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs are parents of minors who raised concerns about the unregulated video gaming industry of which the Defendants are into and allege that such are bordering in illegal gambling. Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: KStephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. Alex C. Davis, Esq. Patrick Walsh, Esq. JONES WARD PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 S. Fourth Street, Sixth Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Tel. (502) 882-6000 Fax (502) 587-2007 Email: jasper@jonesward.com alex@jonesward.com patrick@jonesward.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAWOFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Tel. (516) 426-6870 Fax (212) 658-9685 Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com - and - D. Todd Mathews, Esq. GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Tel. (618) 659-9833 Fax. (618) 659-9834 Email: todd@gorijulianlaw.com - and - Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C. 883 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 Email: neal@urymoskow.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 861-8800 Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com Website: www.hannonlaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Patrick K. Slyne, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Tel. (212) 687-7230 Fax. (212) 490-2022 Email: memert@ssbny.com pkslyne@ssbny.com - and - Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW LLC 1814 E Eagle Bay Drive Bloomington, IN 47401 Email: corey@druginjurylegal.com Phone: (314) 971-9353 - and - Casey Flynn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6220 West Third Street, #415 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Email: francisflynn@gmail.com - and - Andrew P. Bell, Esq. Alfred M. Anthony, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. LOCKS LAWFIRM LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856)663-8200 Fax: (856)661-8400 Email: abell@lockslaw.com aanthony@lockslaw.com jbarry@lockslaw.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 292-6676 Email: jean@jsmlawoffice.com - and - Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq. ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Email: fuli@zarzaur.com Website: www.zarzaur.com - and - Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Ryan Bruning, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM 555 Washington Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 735-8100 Fax: (314) 735-8020 Email: tony@bruninglegal.com aj@bruninglegal.com ryan@bruninglegal.com - and - Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAWOFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 241-5799 Fax: (314) 241-5788 Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Tel: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Mass. Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument took place on July 26, 2016, in a class action appeal. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on December 24, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their opening brief and the Company filed its opposition brief on March 7, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument on the appeal took place on July 26, 2016. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Mierov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, LLC. The case is entitled Avi Mierov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). Vital Recovery is a debt collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791 4400 Facsimile: (516) 791 4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Groups File Complaints Over Emissions Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that at least 11 advocacy groups have lodged complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice over aspects of the Volkswagen A.G. emissions settlement, with one calling it "impermissible lawmaking" by the Obama administration. The $14.7 billion consent decree, reached last month, includes $2 billion in investments that Volkswagen expects to spend on zero- emissions technology and a $2.7 billion environmental mitigation trust designed to reduce the pollution caused by about 500,000 vehicles installed with a device to cheat emissions tests. The public comments made to the DOJ are separate from objections filed in court over the settlement, which also includes $10 billion in buybacks and other payments to Volkswagen customers. Aug. 5 was the deadline to file a complaint with the DOJ. In one filing, 10 groups led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank that includes prominent class- action critic Ted Frank, criticized the zero-emissions technology investments as having no "nexus" to the Clean Water Act violations at issue in the case. They specifically targeted $1.2 billion of the investments that are set to go to states other than California. They also said the settlement raised concerns about the separation of powers. "President Obama in 2011 made a promise to put 1 million electric vehicles on the road," said William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Institute. But Congress failed to pass legislation twice, he said. "We now have executive lawmaking through consent decree, which raises questions regarding limits to apparent or attempted presidential authority." In a separate complaint, the Diesel Technology Forum, a nonprofit organization that advocates for clean diesel technologies, said the trust, which would provide funds for certain environmental projects, fails to adequately reduce the nitrogen oxides emitted by Volkswagen's vehicles. Allen Schaeffer, the group's executive director, said the deal prioritizes other technologies, like electronic freight trains, over clean diesel, and gives more money to government fleet operators, rather than commercial fleets. "The basis for this settlement is to mitigate the excess [nitrogen oxides] emissions from the vehicles in question regarding Volkswagen," he said. "We believe that the new generation of clean diesel technology is the most effective way to do that." The DOJ and Volkswagen did not respond to requests for comment. WALGREEN CO: Class Atty Not Getting $370,000 Fees, 7th Cir. Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that attorneys in a shareholder action against Walgreens have no business asking for $370,000 in fees when they won "nothing of value" for class members and the litigation only served to enrich class counsel, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled. In 2012, Walgreens acquired a 45 percent stake in Swiss pharmacy Alliance Boots GmbH, with an option to acquire the rest of Alliance's equity, which Walgreen exercised in 2014. It then filed a proxy statement seeking shareholder approval to reorganize the combined company, with Walgreens becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of a new Delaware Corporation called Walgreens Boots Alliance. A shareholder class action swiftly followed seeking additional disclosures to shareholders, and the parties agreed to settle the suit less than a month into litigation. The settlement required Walgreens to issue several disclosures to shareholders, and the pharmacy agreed not to oppose a $370,000 attorney's fees request. A federal judge granted the entire fee request, but the Seventh Circuit reversed August 10, citing the paltry benefit of the settlement to class members. "The disclosures agreed to in the settlement represented only a trivial addition to the extensive disclosures already made in the proxy statement: fewer than 800 new words - resulting in less than a 1 percent increase - spread over six disclosures," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner said, writing for the three-judge panel. The most significant new disclosure regarded the proposed nomination of Barry Rosenstein to the board of directors, a man involved in a hedge fund that had a 1.5 percent interest in Walgreens stock. Posner called this disclosure "worthless" because it revealed nothing about Rosenstein's nomination except the timing of pre- nomination consultations. "The value of the disclosures in this case appears to have been nil. The $370,000 paid class counsel - pennies to Walgreens, amounting to 0.039 cents per share at the time of the merger - bought nothing of value for the shareholders, though it spared the new company having to defend itself against a meritless suit to void the shareholder vote," Posner said. The panel found it "inconceivable" that the new disclosures increased support for the reorganization, especially when it was approved by an overwhelming margin of 97 percent in favor. "The district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging the significance of the disclosures to which the parties had agreed in order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the defendant (because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the giant new company and the disclosures irrelevant to the shareholders and thus incapable of preventing the reorganization) and sweet fees for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to the litigation, a month's activity that produced no value," Posner said. He further noted that no class members have challenged the reorganization that created Walgreens Boots Alliance. "The only concrete interest suggested by this litigation is an interest in attorneys' fees, which of course accrue solely to class counsel and not to any class members," the 12-page opinion continues. Posner urged the lower court on remand to consider appointing new class counsel since current counsel "can't be trusted to represent the interests of the class." WARREN RESOURCES: "Speiser" Sues Officers Over Misleading Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Speiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philip A. Epstein, Lance Peterson, and James A. Watt, Case No. 1:16-cv-02037-CBS (D. Col. August 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Warren Resources, Inc. is an energy company that develops and produces onshore crude oil and natural gas reserves. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Matise, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C. 40 Inverness Drive East Englewood, CO 80112 Telephone: (303) 792-5595 Facsimile: (303) 708-0527 E-mail: bmatise@burgsimpson.com - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 905-0509 Facsimile: (212) 905-0508 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com jsarnelli@gardylaw.com WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in "Eggers" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Richard Eggers, individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:14- cv-00394-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional certification of: "all Wells Fargo employees and conditional hires who were 40 years of age or older at the time when Wells Fargo terminated them pursuant to its policy of refusing to sponsor Section 19 waivers and/or its policy of refusing to provide pre-screening notice of the opportunity to obtain a Section 19 waiver from November 3, 2011 to the present." The Plaintiff further moves the Court: a. requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form to those class members and the issuance of a reminder notice in substantially the same from 45 days after the first notice is sent; b. setting a deadline of 90 days after the date the first notice is sent for which putative class members can join this matter; c. requiring Wells Fargo to provide to Plaintiff's counsel a list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with each item of the employee's name and address designated as a separate field) and by hard copy, of all individuals who meet the above class description, including their current or last known address, e-mail address, and phone numbers within 15 days of the issuance of the order; d. tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative class members from the date of filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period; e. designating Plaintiff Richard Eggers as class representative for the collective class; f. approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in this matter; and g. granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XUTdfbDZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Newkirk, Esq. Leonard Bates, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C. 515 E. Locust Street, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: 515 883 2000 Facsimile: 515 883 2004 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com lbates@newkirklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq. Emily S. Hildebrand Pontius, Esq. Britt L. Teply, Esq. Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 447 4701 Facsimile: (515) 248 9010 E-mail: Michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com Emily.pontius@faegrebd.com Britt.teply@faegrebd.com WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification in "Perez" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MONIQUE PEREZ, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv- 00989-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff defines the class as: "All persons who at any time in the 6 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through the date of disposition or judgment in this action who are/were employed by defendants (one or more of them) as a non-exempt employee in the State of New York and who recorded breaks of 20 minutes or less in duration (in workweeks in which he/she recorded at least 40 hours of work time), but was not paid overtime compensation for the recorded breaks." The Court further granted Defendants' request for leave to file the surreply; and sustained Defendants' objections to the admissibility to the Wills Declaration. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aqO0H4Vp WELLS FARGO: Williams et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes in the lawsuit styled CARA WILLIAMS, JOHNITA SLAUGHTER, MANDRE MILLER, JAMES COLLIER, TERESA JONES, CHANCE KENYON, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, DWANN JONES, and LEROY FIELDS-CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00038- CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa). The Plaintiffs define the classes as: "Injunctive/declaratory relief class: All African American and Latino incumbent employees and conditional hires Wells Fargo has identified or will identify as those it did or will summarily exclude from employment due to Wells Fargo's Section 19 background screen policy"; and "Damages class: All African American and Latino incumbent employees and conditional hires who have been excluded from employment due to Wells Fargo's Section 19 background screen policy since November 5, 2011". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Cara Williams, Johnita Slaughter, Mandre Miller, James Collier, Teresa Jones, Chance Kenyon, Anthony Williams, Dwann Jones, and Leroy Fields- Campbell as class representatives; appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; and approve and authorize distribution of a class notice to class, with an opportunity to opt out. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=roklLkF3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Ho, Esq. James L. Kan, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763 9800 Facsimile: (510) 835 1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com - and - Thomas A. Newkirk, Esq. Leonard Bates, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C. 515 E. Locust Street, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 883 2000 Facsimile: (515) 883 2004 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com lbates@newkirklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq. Emily S. Hildebrand Pontius, Esq. Britt L. Teply, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 248 9000 WESTAR ENERGY: 2 Class Suits Filed Related to Merger ---------------------------------------------------- Westar Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that following the announcement of the merger agreement with Great Plains Energy Incorporated, two putative class action complaints and one putative derivative action complaint challenging the merger were filed on behalf of purported Westar Energy shareholders in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The Company said, "The first complaint, filed on June 13, 2016, is captioned Smith v. Westar Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2016-CV- 000457. This complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the members of our board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the proposed merger, and that we and Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration undervalues Westar Energy, that the merger agreement contains deal protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy and discourages third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, and that if the proposed transaction is consummated, our CEO will reap significant personal financial gain. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement (to the extent already implemented), a directive to the members of our board of directors to account for all damages caused by them as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties, and award for costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper." "The second complaint, filed on June 14, 2016, is captioned Miller v. Westar Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2016-CV-000458. This complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the members of our board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the proposed merger, and that Westar Energy and Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration deprives our shareholders of fair consideration for their shares, that the merger agreement contains deal protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy and discourage third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, and that if the proposed transaction is consummated, certain of our directors and officers stand to receive significant benefits. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, an order to permit the action to be maintained as a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, a directive to defendants to account for all damages caused by them as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties, and award for costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. "Counsel for plaintiffs in the Smith matter and the Miller matter have filed an unopposed motion for consolidation and appointment of lead counsel. The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in both class action lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. "The third complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, is captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This putative derivative action is brought on behalf of our shareholders and names as defendants the members of our board of directors, Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, with Westar Energy named as the nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the proposed merger, and that Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. "The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of our board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price for our shareholders because of a flawed process that discouraged third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, an order to permit the action to be maintained as a derivative action, enjoining direction that the director defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of us and our shareholders, a declaration that the proposed transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, rescission of the merger agreement (to the extent already implemented), imposing a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of us, upon any benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, and award for costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. The defendants intend to seek dismissal of this complaint at the appropriate time." WESTERN EXPRESS: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WILLIAM SMITH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01238-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), Mr. William Smith moves the Court to certify Plaintiff class and subclasses: Plaintiff Class: "all persons who performed work for Defendant, Western Express, Inc., as non-exempt employed truck drivers within the State of California at any time from May 12, 2011 to the present (or the date established by the Class Certification Order) as demonstrated by Defendant's corporate and payroll records"; The Minimum Wage Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who were not paid at least California's Minimum Wage for all "hours worked" during the Class Period for work performed in California, as required by California Labor Code"; The Meal Period Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were not provided with 30-minute, off-duty meal periods in the manner provided by California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9-2001, Sec. 11 for work performed in the State of California during the Class Period for qualifying shifts; and (2) were not paid a "premium wage" of one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay in lieu of the meal period as shown by Defendant's corporate business and payroll records"; The Rest Period Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were not provided with 10-minute, paid rest periods for every four hours worked (or major fraction thereof) in the manner provided by California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, for work performed in the State of California during the Class Period; and (2) were not paid a "premium wage" of one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay in lieu of the rest period as shown by Defendant's corporate business and payroll records. The Wage Statement Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were provided wage statements that failed to state the actual number of chours worked" and the applicable rates of pay for work performed in the State of California as required by California Labor Code, during the applicable limitations period (i.e., from May 12, 2014 to the present, and/or the date established by the Certification Order)"; The Expense Reimbursement Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who were not reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred while performing work in the State of California during the Class Period as required by California Labor Code and/or IWC Wage Order"; The Termination Pay Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment with the Defendant during the applicable limitations period (i.e., from May 12, 2012 to the present and/or the date established by the Certification Order); and (2) were not timely paid all wages due for all "hours worked" for work performed in the State of California as required by California Labor Code"; and The California UCL Subclass: "all members of the Plaintiff Class during the Class Period who were subjected to Defendant's business acts or practices regarding minimum wages, meal and rest periods and expense reimbursements, and whom, if said business acts or practices are found to be unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive, are owed restitution". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7tPXnhOe The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com - and - COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595 3001 Facsimile: (619) 595 3000 E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com - and - Brian J. Mankin, Esq. FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320 1444 Facsimile: (951) 320 144 E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit over Royalties ---------------------------------------------------- Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that pro wrestler Marcus "Buff" Bagwell slammed the WWE with a class- action lawsuit, seeking royalties for footage of his matches on the wrestling company's streaming network. The former World Championship Wrestling grappler sued Vince McMahon's empire in Connecticut Federal Court on August 9, alleging claims of failure to pay royalties, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices. Bagwell added that the value of the class's matches, which are available on the WWE Network, exceeds $5 million. "Defendant breached its early contract release with plaintiff by selling WCW video products (streaming videos on the WWE Network) of PPVs and non-PPVs without paying any royalties to plaintiff," Bagwell's lawsuit states. Bagwell claims WWE denied his accountant's request to audit the WWE's financial records to determine his client's royalties. "Because your client is not paid any such royalties (WWE Network), there is nothing to audit," Bagwell quoted the WWE letter as stating. Bagwell, who lives in Woodstock, Ga., began wrestling for WCW in 1991 as a fresh-faced hero before turning "heel" and joining the New World Order stable in 1996. Sporting a top hat and striking exaggerated muscle poses, Bagwell reinvented himself with the catchphrase, "I'm Buff, and I'm the stuff!" Bagwell worked for WCW until just before WWE bought the company in March 2001. When McMahon asked his fans whether they wanted Bagwell to wrestle in WWE, they cheered, but his WWE career only consisted of one match. The wrestler took on Booker T in a critically panned match on Monday Night Raw in July 2001. He was released from his contract the following month. In the last 15 years, Bagwell has wrestled occasionally on the independent circuit. He also appeared on the "Gigolos" series on Showtime. Bagwell's WCW matches are currently available on demand on the WWE Network. The grappler claims that his 2001 contract calls for him to receive royalties for "video cassettes, video discs, CD-ROM or other technology, including technology not yet created." The WWE Network launched in 2014, charging $9.99 per month for current and former pay-per-view events, along with other wrestling and talk shows. Bagwell's lawsuit alleges that the streaming network reached an average of 1.29 million subscribers in the first quarter of 2016. "In 2015, WWE Network purchasers watched an estimated total of 256 million hours of content, representing an average of 188 hours per household," the complaint states. He also cited language in his contract that called for 5 percent of receipts from WCW video profits to "a talent royalty pool, from which WCW shall pay plaintiff and all other talent appearing in such WCW video products pro-rata among plaintiff and all other talent so featured." Bagwell seeks restitution, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as an injunction to keep the WCW pay-per-views off the WWE Network until the royalties are paid. During his career, Bagwell won five WCW tag team championships. His mother, Judy, also won that title with Rick Steiner and was featured in a "Judy Bagwell on a Pole" match between Bagwell and his rival, Kanyon. Mrs. Bagwell was actually placed on a forklift during the match. Bagwell is represented by Brenden Leydon of the Tooher, Wohl and Leydon law firm. Leydon also represented several former WWE wrestlers in a lawsuit last month regarding post-concussion syndrome. The WWE called that lawsuit "ridiculous" at the time, adding that "a federal judge has already found that this lawyer made patently false allegations about WWE, and this is more of the same." WWE did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment August 11. XPO LAST: Carter et al. Seek to Certify Overtime Claim under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RON CARTER, JUAN ESTRADA, JERRY GREEN, BURL MALMGREN, BILL McDONALD, and JOEL MORALES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16- cv-01231-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify their overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion will be held on September 14, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. or as soon as the parties may be heard, in Courtroom 2 of the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QJXhul6z The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Ross, Esq. Jennifer Keating, Esq. Amy Endo, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272 0169 Facsimile: (510) 272 0174 E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com jkeating@leonardcarder.com aendo@leonardcarder.com YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali Sues Over Losses in Retirement Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH VELLALI, NANCY S. LOWERS, JAN M. TASCHNER, RANAY P. CIRILLO, JAMES MANCINI, AND TARA HEARD, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan v. YALE UNIVERSITY AND MICHAEL A. PEEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-01345 (D. Conn., August 9, 2016), seeks to enforce the Defendants' personal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to restore to the Plan all losses resulting from each alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries in the Yale University Retirement Account Plan. The Yale University Retirement Account Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under the ERISA. Faculty and staff members of Yale are eligible to participate in the Plan, which provides the only source of retirement income for many employees of Yale. As of June 30, 2014, the Plan held $3.6 billion in assets and had 16,487 participants with account balances. Yale University is a Connecticut non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut. Yale University delegated to the Vice President of Human Resources and Administration the authority to establish a committee and appoint members thereto, which may oversee the investment options provided under the Plan or otherwise administer the Plan. Defendant Michael Peel has served as Yale University's Vice President of Human Resources and Administration since 2008. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart M. Katz, Esq. COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-0211 Facsimile: (203) 337-5505 E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com - and - Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael W. Wolf, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com YOUR MARKETING: Alan et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JASON ALAN, ROBERT BOHLKE, JOSEPH MENICHIELLO, AND DAVID VACCARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. YOUR MARKETING SOURCE, INC. DBA INTERNET LOCAL LISTINGS, INC., SAM RIEMER, DOUGLAS POWELL, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE AND EACH OF THEM, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00728-AG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant or their agent/s and/or employee/s to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint". The Plaintiffs also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and for appointment of Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6fSi4Bmy The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 ********* 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 * * *