/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160908.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 180 Headlines 717 PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Towing Practices ADOBE CAFE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Layne" Suit Claims AGA SERVICE: Settlement Conference Continued to Nov. 17 AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Murphy" Suit AMERICAN MODERN: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Granted AMIRA NATURE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action ANGIE'S LIST: Settles Class Action for $1.4MM, Dec. 5 Hearing Set ARCELORMITTAL: Mon Valley Alliance Opts Out of Monessen Settlement ASSET CAMPUS: Bid for Class Certification in "Jang" Suit Denied ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending AT&T: 9th Circuit Tosses FTC's Data-Throttling Suit AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 19 Suits in Bergen County Pending AXIALL CORP: West Virginia Residents Sue Over Chlorine Leak BAE SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Vollmer" Class Suit in District Arizona BAYLOR COLLEGE: Class Cert. Sought in "Aguocha-Ohakweh Suit" Suit BELLE TIRE: Hach Rose Initiates Consumer Class Action BILL WHATCOTT: Faces Class Action Over Homophobic Actions BMO NESBITT: Court Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement BP PLC: Two Lawyers Sued Over Fraudulent Oil-Spill Claims BRISTOL-MYERS: N.J. Judge Tosses Majority of Plavix Claims BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Plavix Cases CALIFORNIA: Spectrum Files Disabled Voting Rights Class Action CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. in "Prindle" Granted in Part CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Olsen" FDCPA Suit Cannot Proceed as Class CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Litigation Dismissed CHIPOTLE: About 10,000 Workers Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages CIS SERVICES: Lockwood Seeks Certification of Adjusters Class COLLECTO INC: "Tesch" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CONNECTICUT: Correction Officers Sued Over Civil Rights Violation CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of "West" Suit CR ENGLAND: "Harper" Suit Removed to Utah Dist. Ct. CYPRESS MEDIA: Class Cert. Renewed Bid in "O'Shaughnessy" Denied DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Hard Six Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Olympus Hotels Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces A&B Properties Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PS Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Raim Cole Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces S&C Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Southwest Suit Over Appraisal Policies DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stone Canyon Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Uptown Village Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Wheatland Suit Over Appraisal Policies DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Sanders Supporters' Class Action Can Proceed DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in Weinstat-Nathan Case Remains Pending DENTSPLY SIRONA: Class Certification Bid in "Hildebrand" Pending DIRECTORS GUILD: Faces "Grossman" Class Suit in C.D. California DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Wants to Notify Members of Class Accord DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 2 EASY MOBILE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Freeman" Suit EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive 401(k) Fees EMPIRE DISTRICT: MOU Reached to Resolve Kansas Suit EMSP LLC: Class Certification in "Funez" Suit Partly Granted ENERGY RECOVERY: Mediation Continued to October 12 ERNST & YOUNG: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Court Rules ESPN: Ex-College Athlete Loses Bid to Revive Publicity Rights Case EXECUTIVE CUT: "Ornelas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime FIAT CHRYSLER: 6th Cir. Affirms Pacificas Class Action Dismissal FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery FRESENIUS MEDICAL: AG Sues Over Kidney Dialysis Product Risk GE INSPECTION: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Pasciolla" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania GOLDEN GATE: $750,000 Settlement Preliminarily Approved GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Casts Doubt on Antitrust Class Action GREEN TREE: "Kamimura" Case Extends Submission of Discovery Plan GROUP HEALTH: Faces "Wechsler" Class Suit in S.D. New York HCA HOLDINGS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation HM OPERATING: Settlement in "Comeens" Case Has Final OK HOECHST MARION: Settles Cipro Class Action, Oct. 7 Hearing Set HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wandersee" Suit ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 7th Cir. Affirmed Class Cert. Ruling INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Bid Filed in Tenn. Suit J CHOO: Court Allows FACTA Class Action to Proceed JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in "Shore" Suit Has Initial Okay KELLY SERVICES: "Gaffers" Suit Wins Conditional Certification KILLION & SONS: Status Hearing in "Baughman" Suit on Sept. 16 KOREAN RAMEN: Samyang's Accord with Indirect Buyers Has Final OK LANDRYS INC: Settlement in "Saechao" Suit Has Final Approval LINN COUNTY, OR: Court Set to Rule on Motions on September 19 MARGRAF COLLECTION: Bloodworth Seeks Certification of Class MDL 2196: Mohawk Industries Settled Individual Claims MCLEOD EXPRESS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Downs" Suit MENZIES AVIATION: Settles Back-Pay Lawsuit for $8.2 Million MISSOURI: Jamerson May File Amended Complaint in Hep C Action MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Dixon May Amend Class Complaint MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington County Drops Class Action NEST LABS: Averts Class Action Over Wi-Fi-Enabled Thermostats NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending NORTHERN OIL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York OCEAN STATE: Faces "Hanscome" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Lawsuit Underway PACIFIC GAS: Amended Protective Order Adopted in "Greer" Suit PANERA BREAD: Must Pay $5,578 Bill of Costs in "Boswell" Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Tobacco Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK POWER SOLUTIONS: October 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set QUANTUM LEARNING: Court Seals Deporter's Declaration RAYONIER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery Phase RED GRANITE: Amanah Seeks Yang's Support for 1MBD Class Action RJ REYNOLDS: Lawyer Faces Sanctions in Florida Tobacco Case ROCKET FUEL: Class Certification Sought in Rocket Fuel Litigation S2VERIFY: Class Notice Plan in "Hawkins" Case Approved SCRAP INC: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Car Care Suit Continued SEPTRAN INC: Barker Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Maloney" Suit ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces "Ross" Class Suit in C.D. California ST. JUDE MEDICAL: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set STATE FARM: "Dennington" Suit May Proceed as Class Action SUNPOWER CORP: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set SUNTRUST BANK: Stock-Drop Suit Obtained Class Action Status SURFSTITCH: More Than 100 Investors to Join Class Action SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal in Suit Over EDS & NDI Sales Pending TAMKO BUILDING: Court Grants Page Extension in "Snyder" Suit TEREX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suits in Conn. & Del. THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims TIVO INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California TRANSENTERIX INC: Bid to Dismiss "Bankley" Still Pending TRUSTMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Denied UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Intervene in "O'Connor" Suit Denied UGI CORPORATION: Indirect Purchaser Claims Remain Pending UGI CORPORATION: New Group of Indirect Buyers Files Class Suit UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pacanowski" Suit Says UNITED STATES: HUD Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practice UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana UPS: Triangle Workers Mull Class Action Over Working Conditions VARITRONICS LLC: Discovery Ruling in Yaakov Case Affirmed VCA INC: Class Certification & Summary Judgment Bids Underway VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Berkerey" VOLARIS: Securities Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice WELLS FARGO: Settles Student-Loan Case for $4 Million WHIRLPOOL: Bid to Compel Non-Party Discovery Denied WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in "Payala" Suit Denied * ACA Submits Comments on CFPB's Proposed Arbitration Rule * Conservative Group Challenges CFPB's Arbitration Rule * Lawsuits Challenge Universities' 403(b) Retirement Plans * New Entrants Drives Upward Trend in Australian Class Action Risk * Report Shows Spike in Shareholder Class Actions in Australia ********* 717 PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Towing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Pransky, writing for WTSP, reports that law firm Morgan & Morgan has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status following a 10Investigates story into questionable towing practices by Tampa- based 717 Parking Enterprises and its leading towing partner, Target Recovery & Transport. The lawsuit accuses 717 and Target Recovery of "unlawful, unfair, deceptive and unconscionable practices," including failing to provide parking receipts when drivers paid attendants in cash, towing away vehicles inappropriately, and overcharging those drivers in violation of Hillsborough County ordinances. 10Investigates exposed, following a number of viewer complaints, how Target Recovery improperly assessed after-hours fees at nights and on weekends, and also charged a prohibited $25 private parking fine to drivers towed from 717 lots, even in some cases where those drivers had appeared to pay attendants in cash. The lawsuit, filed in Hillsborough County, also alleges the defendants broke the law by "accepting money for the privilege of towing or removing from a particular location" and seeks "damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs and jurisdiction properly lies with this Court." If class action status is granted by the court, any driver improperly towed or ticketed by Target Recovery or 717 Parking may be eligible for damages. When 10Investigates first reported on 717 and Target complaints in May, the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission (PTC) had done little in reaction to the violations of the county wrecker rules. But after the story aired, the Hillsborough PTC audited 30 days' worth of Target towing receipts and issued fines for improper after-hours fees and for assessing improper private parking fines on behalf of 717. 10Investigates continued to expose improper charges later in the summer as well and the PTC is continuing to investigate, with additional fines possible. 717 President & CEO Jason Accardi emailed the following statement to 10Investigates on Aug. 22: "At Seven One Seven Parking Enterprises, we have built our company based on providing the best parking services possible, hiring the best employees and always being accessible and accountable to our customers. We promote a professional and engaging atmosphere at all times. Our reputation and integrity are of utmost importance to us and we have experienced great success based upon our great reputation and how we treat people with dignity and respect in all situations. We strive to provide safe & convenient parking options for the citizens and patrons of the Tampa bay & surrounding areas." "However, since this matter is the subject of a pending litigation, we are unable to comment with specific detail as it relates to this litigation and we will respond appropriately to the lawsuit. We are confident that our position will be clarified throughout the litigation process and we will continue to manage and operate all of Seven One Seven Parking's parking facilities with the utmost integrity and highest quality service, while treating everyone we encounter with dignity and respect, always intending to maintain and preserve the safety and best interest of our valued patrons." Target Recovery owner Kris Grau did not yet respond to an Aug. 21 email. ADOBE CAFE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Layne" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Layne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Adobe Cafe, Inc., Addison & Herrerrias, Inc. and Mariano Herrerrias, Case No. 160803648 (Phil. Cmmw. Ct., August 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly pay employees in accordance with state wage and hour law. The Defendants own and operate Adobe Cafe restaurants in Philadelphia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq. Amy E. Galer, Esq. David W. Snyder, Esq. BRODIE & RUBINSKY, P.C. 121 South Broad Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 925-1470 Facsimile: (215) 925-3748 AGA SERVICE: Settlement Conference Continued to Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granted the parties' stipulation on a continuance of the Settlement Conference from September 8, 2016 to November 17, 2016 in the case, FAZILAT KAZEMINEZHAD, an individual and BRETT W. LASHLEE, an individual, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, a Virginia corporation (a/k/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE USA) and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05087-JD (N.D. Cal.). The new schedule would allow for additional data points to be compiled and analyzed in combination with the current data results and then for the Parties' to exchange their settlement proposals and discuss their respective settlement models prior to the Settlement Conference. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/pMYKp7from Leagle.com. Fazilat Kazeminezhad, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Ingrid M. Evans -- ingrid@evanslaw.com -- The Evans Law Firm, Lane Lanier Vines, Berger Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Aaron Levy -- michael@evanslaw.com -- Evans Law Firm, Inc., Peter Richard Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- Berger Montague, P.C. & Yechiel Michael Twersky, Berger Montague, P.C., pro hac vice. AGA Service Company, et al. Defendants, represented by Gayle Irene Jenkins -- gjenkins@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, LLP & Navdeep Kaur Punia -- npunia@winston.com -- Winston Strawn LLP. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Murphy" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled James S. Murphy, the Plaintiff, v. Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00120-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "All persons who were employed by Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. and/or Windsor Quality Foods at their Carthage, Missouri, or Piedmont, Missouri, facilities as production-floor employees at any time from three years prior to June 26, 2015, through the present, and who were not compensated at a rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 a week for time spent donning and doffing protective gear or equipment, performing sanitary activities such as washing hands and utilizing a foot sanitizer, and walking to or from these activities to the production-line floor." The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were entitled to overtime compensation for the above activities. Because of Ajinomoto's policy of not paying employees for these required work activities, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees did not receive the overtime compensation to which they were entitled under the FLSA. The Defendant makes Asian/Ethnic foods and appetizers. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=25Xl5bPr The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Swift, Esq. John F. Edgar, Esq. Michael D. Pospisil, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com mdp@edgarlawfirm.com mts@edgarlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Tracy C. Litzinger, Esq. David C. Van Dyke, Esq. Emily E. Bennett, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC One Technology Plaza 211 Fulton, Suite 600 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 672 1483 Facsimile: (309) 672 1568 E-mail: tlitzinger@howardandhoward.com dvandyke@howardandhoward.com ebennett@howardandhoward.com AMERICAN MODERN: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned PAMELA GREEN individually and on behalf of others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:14-cv-04074-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered order granting Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of: "All persons and entities that received "actual cash value" payments, directly or indirectly, from American Modern for loss or damage to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Arkansas, such payments arising from events that occurred within the five years preceding the date of filing of the Class action complaint, where the cost of labor was depreciated." Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons and entities that received payment from American Modern in the full amount of insurance shown on the declarations page; (2) American Modern and its affiliates, officers and directors; (3) members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (4) Plaintiff's counsel. The Court further entered an order: 1. denying Defendant's motion for fearing; 2. approving Pamela Green as class representative; and 3. appointing law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; Keil & Goodson, P.A.; Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC; Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Taylor Law Partners, LLP; Stephen Engstrom Law Office; Crowley Norman LLP; and James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A. as counsel for the Class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1F0Q5oFx AMIRA NATURE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Amira Nature Foods Ltd., a global provider of branded packaged specialty rice, on Aug. 22 disclosed that the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss class action lawsuit. In February 2015, two proposed shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against Amira Nature Foods Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, (the "Class Action") named as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The Class Action purported to state claims for violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Company contested the allegations in the Class Action and on October 22, 2015, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Class Action, as amended. On July 18, 2016 the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action in its entirety and provided Plaintiffs with a deadline of August 4, 2016, to re-file an amended complaint which Plaintiffs failed to do. About Amira Nature Foods Ltd Founded in 1915, Amira -- http://www.amira.net-- is a global provider of branded packaged specialty rice, including Basmati and other food products, with sales across five continents around the world. The Company primarily sells Basmati rice, which is a premium long-grain rice grown only in the geographically indicated region of the Indian sub-continent, under its flagship Amira brand as well as under other third party brands. Amira sells its products through a broad distribution network in both the developed and emerging markets. The Company's global headquarters are in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and it also has offices in India, Malaysia, Singapore, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Amira Nature Foods Ltd is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "ANFI." ANGIE'S LIST: Settles Class Action for $1.4MM, Dec. 5 Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jared Council, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports that Angie's List Inc. has agreed to pay $1.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit claiming it manipulated search results and ratings to favor advertisers -- claims that the home-services company denies. Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania signed off on the settlement proposal in July and signed a scheduling order earlier in August. In recent days, class-action members -- all U.S. citizens who were paid Angie's List members between March 11, 2009, and July 12, 2016 -- started receiving emails with information about filing settlement claims. Indianapolis-based Angie's List agreed to the settlement without admission or concession of any liability or wrongdoing, according to court filings, and the court hasn't sided with either party. However, Angie's List agreed to provide expanded disclosures about service-provider advertising on its website and in its membership agreement. A hearing to finalize the settlement is set for Dec. 5. Attorneys in the case are seeking a maximum of $937,500 in legal fees and the three main plaintiffs are looking to split $12,500. Class-action members have until Nov. 15 to file claims. Those individuals are entitled to either a cash payment of $5 or $10, or "one free month of membership to Angie's List for each full year he or she paid for membership during the relevant periods." The case stems in part from a suit filed by a Philadelphia woman in March 2015 claiming she was swindled by a contractor whose bad reviews were suppressed on the Angie's List site. That suit was merged with two other suits alleging revenue-related manipulation and was granted class-action status. Angie's List denied the plaintiffs' claims, according to court documents, denying that revenue can affect the content of reviews and ratings. Angie's List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed sent the following response to IBJ via email on Aug. 22: "We are committed to the mission of connecting consumers with high-quality service providers and doing it with integrity while striving for transparency and awareness. We believe that we have conducted business in this manner, and the proposed settlement is not an admission that the company has done anything wrong. As a company, however, we would rather pursue a settlement at this time in a manner that provides a benefit to our members rather than incurring the cost and disruption associated with continued litigation." Attorneys with Philadelphia-based Golomb & Honik PC didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment. ARCELORMITTAL: Mon Valley Alliance Opts Out of Monessen Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Beveridge, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that the Mon Valley Alliance economic development group has opted out of receiving a share of a cash settlement a Monessen coke plant agreed to pay to end a federal Clean Air Act lawsuit. The alliance announced on Aug. 22 it didn't want to be involved in the tentative settlement ArcelorMittal reached with local residents who filed a class action lawsuit in June 2015 over foul odors the plant emitted after it reopened. "While we recognize the importance of meeting air quality standards, we acknowledge the major investment of $50 million by ArcelorMittal in capital improvements to the Monessen Coke Plant and the ongoing efforts of ArcelorMittal to address air quality issues," Mon Valley Alliance Chairman John Easoz stated in a news release. The tentative settlement reached in March called for the company to pay $452,500 to the plaintiffs, $250,500 of which would apply to attorney fees. The rest of the money would be divided among those within a 1-1/2-mile radius of the plant at 345 Donner Ave. The company also agreed to invest another $450,000 in plant upgrades to reduce emissions. The alliance formed in a merger in March of the Mon Valley Progress Council and Middle Monongahela Industrial Development Association. The alliance made the list of those eligible to receive a portion of the settlement because the council's offices were in Monessen. The Monessen plant employs 179 people, 154 of whom belong to a union, the alliance said. "Well-paid manufacturing jobs are the key for economic development in the mid-Mon Valley. We applaud Mittal's ongoing commitment to our region," Easoz said. ASSET CAMPUS: Bid for Class Certification in "Jang" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Andy Jang, the Plaintiff v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01067-JAK- PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action; and 2. mooting a motion to strike portions of the reply. Because Plaintiff does not qualify to seek injunctive relief, he is not a suitable representative for those putative class members who are current tenants in units related to Defendants and who could benefit from injunctive relief. The court's order provides that, "decisions about former employees are instructive. They have been deemed inadequate class representatives for current employees. See Ellis, 657 F.3d at 986 ("As former employees, Ellis and Horstman would not share an interest with class members whose primary goal is to obtain injunctive relief. Thus, as the class currently stands, Ellis and Horstman will not adequately protect the interests of the class as a whole")." A Status Conference in the matter as to scheduling, is set for September 19, 2016 at 1:30 p.m . On or before September 9, 2016, counsel shall submit a joint report with their collective or respective positions as to scheduling. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KvqhHMWh ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in a merger class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "Following the announcement of the execution of a Merger Agreement, six lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. These actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12- 09 Trust v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6) The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015). On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York lawsuits under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015, and on January 29, 2016 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. In addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January 22, 2016). The plaintiff in this case filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2016. Each of the lawsuits is a putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria and names as defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB, or collectively, the defendants." "The various complaints generally allege that the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Merger Agreement because they failed to properly value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration. The complaints further allege that the directors of Astoria approved the Merger through a flawed and unfair sales process, alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the Astoria directors regarding certain personal and financial benefits they will receive upon consummation of the proposed transaction that public stockholders of Astoria will not receive. The complaints also variously allege that the Astoria directors breached their fiduciary duties because they improperly agreed to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria, including a no solicitation provision that allegedly prevents other buyers from participating in discussions which may lead to a superior proposal, a matching rights provision that allows NYCB to match any competing proposal in the event one is made and a provision that requires Astoria to pay NYCB a termination fee of $69.5 million under certain circumstances. In addition, the lawsuit filed in Delaware also alleges that Astoria's directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing a false and materially misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC. Each of the complaints further alleges that NYCB aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria directors. "Each of the actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed Merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek compensatory damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendants believe these actions are without merit. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at June 30, 2016 with respect to these matters. "On April 6, 2016, the defendants and lead plaintiffs for the consolidated New York lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the New York lawsuits. The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Astoria will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the New York lawsuits (including the amended consolidated complaint) and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The supplemental disclosures were made available to Astoria's shareholders on April 8, 2016 through a filing with the SEC by Astoria on a Current Report on Form 8-K. "The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Astoria's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the Supreme Court of the State of New York will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Astoria challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. If the MOU is terminated, no assurance can be given at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material." AT&T: 9th Circuit Tosses FTC's Data-Throttling Suit --------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit has clipped the authority of the Federal Trade Commission when it comes to regulating phone companies. A three-judge panel sided with AT&T Mobility LLC in its fight with the agency over the company's practice of slowing down data service, known as data-throttling, for customers with unlimited data plans. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton wrote in a 21-page opinion issued on Aug. 29 that AT&T's status as a common carrier shielded it from the enforcement action brought under the FTC Act and ordered the lower court to dismiss the suit. AT&T stopped offering new unlimited plans in June 2010, but grandfathered in customers who already had the plans. The FTC complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2014, alleged that the company had been reducing the speed of data service for customers who reached certain usage thresholds in each cycle, sometimes by almost 90 percent. AT&T had tried to persuade U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that the company was exempt from suits brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act because of the law's carve-out for common carriers. But last year, Chen sided with the government agency finding that the exemption applied to specific common-carrier activities -- such as providing phone service -- but not to noncommon-carrier activities, such as data service. The Federal Communications Commission actually reclassified data services as a common-carrier activity as part of its "net neutrality" rules while the FTC case was pending last year. But Chen found that even in light of that change the FTC could still pursue claims related to AT&T's past activity. Judge Chen cited prior cases where government regulators had taken action against common carriers for their noncommon-carrier activities. In the Aug. 29 opinion, Judge Clifton wrote that Judge Chen's reliance on those prior cases was misplaced. "While these cases recognize a distinction between common carrier and non-common carrier activities in the regulation of entities with common carrier status, they do not show that when Congress used the term 'common carrier' in the FTC Act, it could only have meant 'common carrier to the extent engaged in common carrier activity,' " Judge Clifton wrote. "There is no indication that the regulatory distinction in the cases the district court cited is implicit in Congress's phrasing of the common carrier exemption" in the FTC Act, he wrote. Although the Aug. 29 decision comes as a win for AT&T, the company's practices haven't escaped all regulatory scrutiny. In June 2015, the FCC fined the company $100 million over similar data-throttling allegations. The company has since raised the threshold its unlimited-plan customers can reach before it slows their data speeds. AT&T's lawyer, Michael Kellogg -- mkellogg@khhte.com -- of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, referred a request for comment to a company spokesman. The spokesman said in an email that the company is pleased with the decision, but declined to comment further. An FTC spokesman said in an email that the agency is "disappointed with the ruling" is considering "options for moving forward." AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 19 Suits in Bergen County Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that 20 lawsuits representing approximately 141 individual plaintiffs have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County -- Law Division and 19 of these lawsuits are currently pending. In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a licensed plumber. The Company has since revised its maintenance policies to require that non-flame tools be used for plumbing repairs where possible or, where not possible inside the building envelope, that a qualified third party vendor perform the work in accordance with AvalonBay policies. The Company is aware that third parties incurred significant property damage and are claiming other losses, such as relocation costs, as a result of the casualty loss. The Company has established protocols for processing claims and has encouraged any party who sustained a loss to contact the Company's insurance carrier to file a claim. Through the date of this Form 10-Q, of the 229 occupied apartments destroyed in the fire, the residents of approximately 90 units have settled claims with the Company's insurer, and claims from an additional approximate 27 units are being evaluated by the Company's insurer. Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a proposed settlement which would provide a claims process (with agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class settlement. On July 8, 2016, class counsel filed with the court a motion for preliminary approval of this class settlement, and the Company did not oppose such motion. However, the Company cannot predict when or if the court will approve the settlement. A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage. In addition to the class action lawsuits described, 20 lawsuits representing approximately 141 individual plaintiffs have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County -- Law Division and 19 of these lawsuits are currently pending. Most of these state court cases have been consolidated by the court and the Company expects all of them to be consolidated shortly. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in all of the suits. Having incurred applicable deductibles, the Company currently believes that all of its remaining liability to third parties (including any liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class settlement described above, if approved) will be substantially covered by its insurance policies. However, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter. AXIALL CORP: West Virginia Residents Sue Over Chlorine Leak ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that West Virginians are suing one of the nation's largest chlorine producers after a cloud of chlorine gas leaked from a railcar inside a company chemical plant near their homes. Attorney Jim Bordas says the Aug. 27 chlorine leak at the Axiall Corp. plant forced residents from their homes and damaged their properties. The National Transportation Safety Board said on Sept. 1 that about 17,000 gallons of chlorine leaked out. "This is a very serious matter," Mr. Bordas said. "Property has been destroyed, people are worried and afraid. They are afraid of the possible health consequences that may result from this leak." Mr. Bordas is accusing the company of general negligence, trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance, and seeking class action status so that others who suffered can join the suit. Officials with Westlake Chemical Corp., which completed a $3.8 billion acquisition of Axiall on Aug. 31, didn't respond to requests for comment from The Intelligencer The newspaper reports that Mr. Bordas filed in Marshall County Circuit Court on Aug. 27 on behalf of Tim Bohrer, Rhonda Bohrer, Roy Yoho and Darlene Yoho. BAE SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Eduardo Nunez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37- 02016-00018149-CU, was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02162-JLS-NLS to the proceeding. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander I. Dychter, Esq. DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Ste 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 487-0777 E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary Dollarhide, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 458-3000 Facsimile: (858) 458-3005 E-mail: marydollarhide@paulhastings.com BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Vollmer" Class Suit in District Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Banner Health and Banner - University Medical Group. The case is captioned Amanda Vollmer, Donald Vollmer Jr., and Sean Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Banner Health and Banner - University Medical Group, Case No. 2:16-cv-02869-SRB (D. Ariz., August 26, 2016). The Defendants operate an academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC 2325 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 776-5902 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON VINES PLLC 2226 Cottondale Lane, Ste. 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Facsimile: (888) 505-0909 E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com - and - David G. Scott, Esq. John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LLP 1301 Scott St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: DSCOTT@EMERSONFIRM.COM JEMERSON@EMERSONFIRM.COM - and - Manfred Muecke, Esq. Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC 600 W Broadway, Ste. 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4292 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com - and - Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Stephen Richard Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 1 American Plaza 600 W Broadway, Ste. 900 San Diego, CA 92119 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sward@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com BAYLOR COLLEGE: Class Cert. Sought in "Aguocha-Ohakweh Suit" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, et al., on behalf of the United States of America and The State of Texas v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital District, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01704 (S.D. Tex.), file with the Court their motion to certify class seeking to be deemed class representatives in a class action. The Plaintiffs define the Class as: i. All harmed victims of 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional Rights deprivations or subjections to deprivation of such rights in the course of providing health care services in Texas and by persons or entities acting under the color of law; ii. All harmed victims of conspiracy for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory with the United States with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, and said wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course of providing health care services in Texas; and iii. All harmed victims of any conspiracy or any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to either directly or indirectly deprive any persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of Texas, and said wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course of providing health care services. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Ernest C. Adimora- Nweke, Jr., Esq., and his firm, Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, as Class Counsel. Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, et al., allege, among other things, that they were subject to the Defendants' conspiracies and actions in furtherance of such to deprive them of their 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional takings, substantive and procedural due process, privileges and immunities, and equal protection rights. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cNKLoDX4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr., Esq. ADIMORA LAW FIRM 5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200 Telephone: (281) 940-5170 E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com Defendant Harris County Hospital District d/b/a Harris Health System d/b/a Ben Taub Hospital is represented by: Ebon Swofford, Esq. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY L. Sara Thomas, Esq. DEPUTY MANAGING ATTORNEY 2525 Holly Hall, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (713) 566-6559 Facsimile: (713) 566-6558 E-mail: Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org Sara.thomas2@harrishealth.org Defendant Baylor College of Medicine and its employee defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. McClure, Esq. Laura Trenaman, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 220-4200 Telecopier: (713) 220-4285 E-mail: jeffmcclure@andrewskurth.com ltrenaman@andrewskurth.com Defendant John Michael Halphen is represented by: John R. Strawn Jr., Esq. Andrew L. Pickens, Esq. STRAWN PICKENS LLP Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 1850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659-9600 Facsimile: (713) 659-9601 E-mail: jstrawn@strawnpickens.com apickens@strawnpickens.com BELLE TIRE: Hach Rose Initiates Consumer Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP, on Aug. 18 disclosed that it filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Belle Tire and certain related entities in Michigan State Circuit Court, Wayne County (No. 16-009952-CZ) on behalf all persons who were induced to purchase and replace undamaged tires at Belle Tire service locations during the period of August 3, 2009 through the present. Any individuals who were informed that failure to replace undamaged tires when replacing one or more damaged tires would void all-wheel drive vehicle warranties, and as a result did, in fact, replace undamaged tires are encouraged to speak directly with the attorneys litigating this action by contacting Frank R. Schirripa or Daniel B. Rehns at (212) 213-8311, toll free (866) LAWS-USA, or via email at fschirripa@hrsclaw.com or drehns@hrsclaw.com. Belle Tire operates locations throughout Michigan and Ohio. The Complaint alleges that Belle Tire engaged in a deceptive scheme whereby it misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the Class that in the event one or more (but less than four) tires on their all- wheel drive automobile required replacement, that the standard and manufacturers' extended warranties required all four tires to be replaced in order to not void the said warranties. Specifically, Belle Tire took affirmative steps to ensure that Plaintiffs and the members of the Class pay for and purchase a complete set of four new tires as well as labor, regardless of how many tires actually required replacement due to damage. This practice targeted all members of the Class and caused them to purchase replacement tires unnecessarily due to Defendants' misrepresentations. Belle Tire benefited substantially from this deceptive sales practice at the expense of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. If you fit this description, you are encouraged to contact the attorneys on this matter to discuss your rights. Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP -- http://www.hrsclaw.com-- specializes in the fields of securities, shareholder, corporate governance and consumer protection litigation. With over 75 years of combined experience, the firm's attorneys have established themselves as leading representatives of investor and consumer rights these areas. The firm's attorneys have successfully litigated complex class actions in both state and federal courts through the United States and are committed to protecting investors' assets and victims of corporate wrongdoing. BILL WHATCOTT: Faces Class Action Over Homophobic Actions --------------------------------------------------------- John McDonald, writing for SFGN, reports that an anti-LGBT group infiltrated a Canadian Pride festival in July and is now facing consequences for those actions. Dressed as "gay pothead zombies," a group led by notorious homophobe Bill Whatcott marched in July's Toronto Pride Parade. Dressed in tight fitting green unitards, the group handed out "information packets" linking gay sex to physical and emotional dangers as well as serious diseases such as anal warts and AIDS. "As a long time gay activist I am outraged that a notorious homophobe infiltrated our pride parade in order to spread his lies and distribute his pamphlets," said Christopher Hudspeth at a news conference announcing a class action lawsuit seeking $104 million in damages from Mr. Whatcott. Mr. Hudspeth, owner of Toronto gay bar Pegasus on Church, told reporters "Pride needs to be a safe place for everyone. We put up with enough homophobic messaging every day. We deserve a homophobic free zone at our pride parade." Mr. Whatcott responded to the lawsuit, giving an interview to LifeSiteNews.com, a website that among other things "understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning and homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels." "Our delivery was a bit creative, but we wanted to give people this message because it is truthful," Mr. Whatcott told the website. Former Deputy Premier George Smitherman joined Mr. Hudspeth on the lawsuit, claiming Mr. Whatcott intentionally sought to afflict mental suffering and defamation. BMO NESBITT: Court Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Koskie Minsky LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement in a class action for overtime at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. (BMO NBI). In 2013, the court certified a class action against BMO NBI. The class action claimed unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors (IAs), Associate IAs and IA Trainees at BMO NBI for employment from 2002 to the present. Mr. Yegal Rosen, a former IA who worked at BMO NBI from 2002-2006, was the lead plaintiff on behalf of the class. Koskie Minsky LLP and Mr. Eli Karp were counsel to the class members in the class action. The Ontario Superior Court has now approved a settlement which was reached between the parties. The settlement provides for payment of a total of $12 million, plus up to $500,000 in administration costs, to be paid by BMO NBI, less deductions for legal fees, disbursements, HST, representative plaintiff honorarium, Class Proceedings Fund levy and any excess administration amounts. The settlement funds will be distributed as follows: (a) by equal payment to each settlement class member who participated as an IA Trainee in the BMO NBI IA Trainee Program between January 1, 2002 and June 1, 2016 and who properly completes and returns a Distribution Confirmation Form; and (b) a finality contribution for all settlement class members of $2 million (less certain deductions), to be divided and paid in equal amounts to each settlement class member who properly completes and returns a Distribution Confirmation Form, regardless of whether they are an IA Trainee. Class members are not required to prove their hours of work under the distribution process. BMO NBI denies the truth of the allegations in the class action and denies any liability whatsoever. Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP commented that "This settlement is an excellent result following 6 1/2 years of litigation. We are very pleased the court has now approved the settlement." BP PLC: Two Lawyers Sued Over Fraudulent Oil-Spill Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in the wake of Mikal Watts' acquittal earlier in August, civil suits filed over the alleged fraudulent oil-spill claims at the center of the criminal case are moving forward, with new allegations of barratry in an action against two other Texas lawyers. On Aug. 23, Mr. Watts filed court papers to reopen a case in which BP PLC alleged he made up Social Security numbers and other documents while purporting to represent 40,000 deckhands in the $2.3 billion seafood compensation program. In so doing, Mr. Watts and his firm planned to begin the process of dismissing the case. In another case, an attorney for 29 Vietnamese-American fishermen has filed a new complaint alleging that two other plaintiffs lawyers who worked with Watts, John Cracken and Bob Hilliard, committed barratry, which is illegal under Texas law. "Mr. Watts and all his team admitted in open court they hired runners," said Tammy Tran -- ttran@tt-lawfirm.com -- of The Tammy Tran Law Firm, a Houston attorney who represents the fishermen plaintiffs. The new complaint seeks $10,000 in civil penalties for each act of barratry they allege. Mr. Watts, founder of San Antonio's Watts Guerra, was acquitted on Aug. 18 of multiple fraud counts alleging he and two firm employees submitted 40,000 claimants to an oil-spill compensation fund paid for by BP while knowing that those people, predominantly Vietnamese-American fishermen, had not retained them. Mr. Watts was acquitted along with his brother David Watts, and two others. The jury found other defendants guilty whom Mr. Watts had hired to get clients. BP's suit against Mr. Watts and his firm alleged that his fraudulent claims had tainted the seafood compensation settlement. It was stayed pending the criminal case. The suit against Mr. Cracken, of the Cracken Law Firm in Dallas, and Hilliard, of Hilliard Mu¤oz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, neither of whom was criminally charged, claims they stole the identities of 45,500 Vietnamese-American fishermen in hopes of getting $2 billion in oil-spill payments. They alleged that both lawyers, and Watts Guerra attorney Stacey Erin Burke, misappropriated their names and likenesses. On Aug. 26, the plaintiffs changed that complaint to allege that Messrs. Hilliard and Cracken conspired to pay runners more than $10.7 million to secure oil-spill clients in violation of Texas law against barratry. The suit also adds as defendants Watts Guerra capital partner Frank Guerra; former Watts Guerra capital partner J. Hunter Craft, who left in 2013 to form Craft Law Firm in Houston; and Duncan Litigation Investments, which allegedly financed up to $6 million of the payments to the runners. Mr. Cracken's attorney, John Neese, a partner at Houston's Hawash Meade Gaston Neese & Cicack, said in an email that "in light of mounting pressure by defendants and likely due to the Watts's 'not guilty' verdict, the plaintiffs have completely abandoned their misappropriation of name claim. Now plaintiffs are proceeding on a single (new) cause of action for civil barratry. Defendants have a number of solid defenses to that claim as well." Mr. Hilliard's lawyer, Michael Richardson of Houston's Beck Redden, did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Burke, now a solo practitioner in Houston, moved in August for $18,842 in sanctions and a summary-judgment ruling tossing her from the case. BRISTOL-MYERS: N.J. Judge Tosses Majority of Plavix Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the federal judge in Trenton overseeing multidistrict litigation over allegedly improper marketing of blood pressure drug Plavix has granted motions by defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi- Aventis U.S. to dismiss the majority of claims in a False Claims Act case related to the drug. BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Plavix Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reports that the California Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that California courts have personal jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in eight Plavix actions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10, which extends jurisdiction to the maximum extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution. On Aug. 29, a panel majority reasoned that although BMS' business contacts in California are insufficient to invoke general jurisdiction, the company's California activities are sufficiently related to the nonresident plaintiffs' lawsuits to support the invocation of specific jurisdiction, under which personal jurisdiction is limited to specific litigation related to the defendant's state contacts. CALIFORNIA: Spectrum Files Disabled Voting Rights Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Institute on Aug. 22 disclosed that on New Year's Day 2016 a new state law went into effect in California which affirms the right to vote for thousands of seniors and people with disabilities. If they can express their desire to vote, they have the right to vote. The problem? Unless immediate action is taken, thousands of eligible California voters are going to be watching November's election results on television knowing they were prevented from voting because of California officials previously disqualified them from voting -- in violation of federal voting rights laws. Take the case of San Diego resident David Rector. David, who is a quadriplegic, acquired a condition known as "locked-in syndrome" after suffering a massive stroke in 2009. He can think, feel, comprehend, remember, see, hear, and express emotions but cannot move his limbs functionally. He was a producer for National Public Radio before his illness. He was able to vote in 2010 with assistance but was stripped of that voting right by a local official in 2011. David was going to court on Aug. 23, to request his voting rights to be restored IMMEDIATELY. David Rector's story is not unique. Spectrum Institute filed a complaint in July 2014 with the Department of Justice alleging that California officials had violated federal voting rights laws. The DOJ opened an inquiry in May 2015 which is ongoing. That investigation is statewide and implicates the voting rights of tens of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities. The legislature worked to correct the problem and passed the new state law (SB 589). However, seniors and people with disabilities who have also lost their voting rights as David did are unaware of the new law and government officials are slow to restore their voting rights. This is why on Tuesday, August 23, Spectrum Institute was filing a new class action complaint with the DOJ. They want that agency to press the State of California to speed up the voting rights restoration process. After the complaint is filed, David and his supporters will walk to court where David will say "I want to vote" with the aid of his electronic voice. It is those four magic words that trigger the duty of the State of California to restore his voting rights. Spectrum Institute estimates that 30,000 or more Californians like David have lost their right to vote in previous years and are eligible to ask for that right to be restored under SB 589. But they must be registered to vote by October 24 or they will be watching the election returns rather than helping to shape those results with their own vote. People with disabilities should have the same right to vote as every other American. What happens in California will have ramifications in other states with laws that disqualify many people with disabilities from voting. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. in "Prindle" Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled TWYLA PRINDLE, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-01349-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class certification. a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the action shall proceed as a class action, as to Prindle's claim based on the June 27, 2013, mortgage statement. The Court certifies the following class as to that claim: "All Florida consumers who (1) have or had a residential mortgage loan serviced by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, which Carrington obtained when the loan was in default; (2) received a Chapter 7 discharge of their personal liability on the mortgage debt; and (3) personally received a mortgage statement in connection with that discharged mortgage debt dated September 16, 2012, or later, that was in substantially the same form as the communication attached to the class notice." b. The Motion is otherwise denied. The Court further ordered the Plaintiff, Twyla Prindle, shall serve as the class representative, with Janet Varnell, Esq., Brian Warwick, Esq., Steven Simmons, Esq., and Scott Borison, Esq., serving as class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c9fHZzPh CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Olsen" FDCPA Suit Cannot Proceed as Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification following the Court's dismissal of the same claims that are subject in the certification. The case styled, CHRISTOPHER OLSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-2520-T-23AAS (M.D. Fla.), alleges against Defendant three counts of violations under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In the case, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, and afforded the Plaintiff's opportunity to file a second motion for class certification, if appropriate, after filing his second amended complaint. A copy of the Court's Order Report and Recommendation dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/cCERBTfrom Leagle.com. Christopher Olsen, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Swift -- aswift@leavenlaw.com -- Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA, Ian Richard Leavengood, Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA & J. Andrew Meyer, Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Patrick Hahn -- chahn@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP & Donald S. Maurice, Jr. -- dmaurice@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP, pro hac vice. Robert Michael Daisley, Mediator, represented by Robert Michael Daisley -- rob@daisleymediation.com -- Law Office of Robert Michael Daisley, PA. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Litigation Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. ("CBMG" or the "Company"), a clinical-stage biomedicine firm engaged in the development of effective stem cell therapies for degenerative diseases and immunotherapies for cancer, on Aug. 18 disclosed that the class action litigation brought against the Company and the individual defendants has been dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and without leave to amend. "We are extremely pleased with the Court's decision to remove this litigation in its entirety and will continue to deploy resources to advance our clinical programs in both of our immuno-oncology and stem cell platforms. Our team remains steadfast and focused on delivering therapies to treat large unmet medical needs while delivering value to our shareholders. We anticipate to announce the sponsorship of multi-indication clinical trials with multiple institutions using CBMG's CAR-T technologies and will continue to evaluate the feasibility of initiating additional clinical trials for AlloJoinTM, our off-the-shelf allogeneic adipose derived progenitor cell (haMPC) therapy for the treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) in the coming quarters," commented Tony (Bizuo) Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Cellular Biomedicine Group. About Cellular Biomedicine Group Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. -- http://www.cellbiomedgroup.com -- develops proprietary cell therapies for the treatment of certain degenerative and cancerous diseases. Its developmental stem cell and Immuno-Oncology projects are the result of research and development by scientists and doctors from China and the United States. Its GMP facilities in China, consisting of twelve independent cell production lines, are designed, certified and managed according to U.S. standards. CHIPOTLE: About 10,000 Workers Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Phillips, writing for Law.com, reports that about 10,000 workers are joining a suit against Chipotle, saying they were forced to work unpaid off the clock, according to CNNMoney. The suit originated in Colorado and quotes one employee as saying workers were routinely told to clock out and keep working before being told they could leave. Chipotle told CNNMoney that it has done nothing wrong and has paid what it owes to workers. The restaurant, which serves made-to-order fare in a fast-casual setting, has faced legal encounters before. On the labor front, a March 14 ruling by an National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge in Philadelphia slammed the company for social media policies and employee handbooks that violated the National Labor Relations Act. A class action lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill over genetically modified ingredients survived a motion to dismiss in Miami federal court earlier this year. CIS SERVICES: Lockwood Seeks Certification of Adjusters Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GAIL LOCKWOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CIS SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CIS ALAMO SERVICES, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00965-BJD- PDB (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to grant conditional certification for this category of individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act: "All current and former independent contractors and employees of CIS Services, LLC d/b/a CIS Alamo Services, CIS Claim Services, LLC (f/k/a CIS Alamo, LLC) d/b/a Alamo Claim Service, CIS Group of Companies, LLC (f/k/a CIS Holdings, LLC), CIS Group, LLC (f/k/a North American Compass Insurance Services Group, LLC) ( d/b/a CIS Group of Companies), CIS Alamo Holdings, LLC, CIS Specialty Claim Services, LLC (f/k/a CIS KDC, LLC) d/b/a KD Consulting & Appraisal, Cornerstone Appraisal Services, LLC d/b/a Cornerstone, LLC, a CIS Group of Companies and Michael E. Stanley ('CIS'), who: (1) Have held the positions of 'adjusters,' 'appraisers,' 'claims analysts,' 'claims adjusters,' 'independent adjusters,' or 'litigation specialists' or who have performed duties similar to the duties performed by Plaintiffs in providing services related to adjusting insurance claims in Florida for CIS clients; (2) Were paid a daily rate of pay for their services; and (3) Worked more than forty (40) hours in workweeks without being paid overtime premium wages for the hours worked over forty (40) pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act." The Other Defendants are CIS CLAIM SERVICES, LLC (f/k/a CIS ALAMO, LLC) d/b/a ALAMO CLAIM SERVICE, CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, LLC (f/k/a CIS HOLDINGS, LLC), CIS GROUP, LLC (f/k/a NORTH AMERICAN COMPASS INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, LLC) d/b/a CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, CIS ALAMO HOLDINGS, LLC, CIS SPECIALTY CLAIM SERVICES, LLC (f/k/a CIS KDC, LLC) d/b/a KD CONSULTING & APPRAISAL, CORNERSTONE APPRAISAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CORNERSTONE, LLC A CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, and MICHAEL E. STANLEY. The Defendants, operating as CIS Group, provide field inspection services, adjusting, loss consulting and workflow management services. Plaintiff Gail Lockwood (with others similarly situated the "Plaintiffs") worked for CIS in the past three years and was paid a "day rate" wage with no additional compensation for overtime. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and others as independent contractors and paying a "day rate" without any overtime pay for overtime hours they worked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PlkEdYCb The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Karns, Esq. Michael A. Starzyk, Esq. Megan M. Mitchell, Esq. STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC 10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Telephone: (281) 364-7261 Facsimile: (281) 364-7533 E-mail: akarns@starzyklaw.com mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com mmitchell@starzyklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Maria Elena Abate, Esq. COLODNY FASS, P.A. 1401 NW 136th Ave., Suite 200 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (954) 492-4010 E-mail: mabate@colodnyfass.com - and - Michael S. Francis, Esq. FLYNN, FRANCIS & CLARK, L.L.P. 700 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 150 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: 329-3000 E-mail: msfrancis@ffctxlaw.com COLLECTO INC: "Tesch" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WENDY TESCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1135 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court enter an order certifying a proposed class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kae0gOzj The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, 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 dmorris@ademilaw.com CONNECTICUT: Correction Officers Sued Over Civil Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Grenier, Tavorus Fluker, Anthony Rogers, Thomas Marra Lawrence Townsend, Terrence Easton, Lamont Samuel, Ian Cooke, and J. Michael Farren, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Comm Scott Semple, Theresa Lantz, Lawrence Meachum, James Dzurenda, Leo Arnone, James Armstrong, Henry Falcone, Stephen Link, David Batten and Does 1-3, Case No. 3:16- cv-01465-AVC (D. Conn., August 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Defendants are officers and directors of the correction facility in Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Stratton, Esq. STRATTON TRIAL P.C. 117 River St. Milford, CT 06604 Telephone: (212) 987-5555 E-mail: mike@strattontrial.com CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of "West" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Continental Automotive, Inc., Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid Employees of Continental Automotive, Inc. and Certain Affiliate Companies filed on September 6 a motion to dismiss the case, MARK WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY-PAID EMPLOYEES OF CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and CERTAIN AFFILIATE COMPANIES, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-502-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.). Responses are due by Sept. 23, 2016. The Defendants also filed a Memorandum in support of their dismissal bid and an answer to the Complaint. Corporate Disclosure Statements also were filed by the Pension Plan and by Continental Automotive. In an Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/M7BC4Pfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer granted the Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer, scheduling the same on or before September 6, 2016. The parties' motion to Stay Civil Action was denied. Mark West, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton -- cwalton@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette -- econnette@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden Adams, II -- nadams@essexrichards.com. Continental Automotive, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Meredith Anne Pinson -- mpinson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Susan Pyle Dion -- sdion@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. CR ENGLAND: "Harper" Suit Removed to Utah Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Milton Harper, Ronnie Stevenson, and Jonathan Mitchell, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CR England Inc., Case No. CIVDS1601256, was removed from the California Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00906-DBP to the proceeding. CR England Inc. owns and operates a trucking company in Salt Lake City, Utah. CYPRESS MEDIA: Class Cert. Renewed Bid in "O'Shaughnessy" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ELIZABETH O'SHAUGHNESSY, MICHAEL O'SHAUGHNESSY, and RANDALL L. HENSLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. CYPRESS MEDIA, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:13-cv-0947-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Greg Kays denied Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. As discussed at length in the Court's order on Plaintiffs' motion to strike Cypress's summary judgment motion, nothing in the newly disclosed documents changes the Court's holding that a class cannot be certified because Plaintiffs fail to meet commonality requirement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dgtLDOeQ DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Hard Six Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Hard Six Holdings, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10560, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Olympus Hotels Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olympus Hotels, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10572, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lung, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces A&B Properties Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- A & B Properties, Inc. & AB Hawaii Royal Macarthur, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10605, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Boling, Esq. Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq. 2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203 Plano, TX 75023 Telephone: (214) 378-8788 Facsimile: (214) 378-8988 E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com chris@bolinglegal.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PS Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- PS Business Parks LP, PSBP Westwood LP and TPLP Office Park Properties LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC- 16-10599, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Raim Cole Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Raim Cole Avenue LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10596, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces S&C Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- S&C Spring Valley Realty, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10558, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Southwest Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest ETC, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10592, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Loews Hotels Holding Corporation v. Daniel Kellerman, on his behalf and all similarly situated individuals, Case No. CACE-16-012158, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62053-BB to the proceeding. The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation owns or operates 23 hotels in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theresa Marie Gallion, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 401 E Jackson Street 2300 SunTrust Financial Centre Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: 769-7501 E-mail: tgallion@laborlawyers.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stone Canyon Suit Over Appraisal Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Stone Canyon Apartments, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10540, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742-4800 Facsimile: (214) 452-9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Uptown Village Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uptown Village at Cedar Hill LP (Hillside Village Shopping Center v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10593, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Wheatland Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Wheatland Hotels, Ltd v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10571, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lung, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Loews Hotels Holding Corporation v. Daniel Kellerman, on his behalf and all similarly situated individuals, Case No. CACE-16-012158, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62053-BB to the proceeding. The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation owns or operates 23 hotels in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theresa Marie Gallion, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 401 E Jackson Street 2300 SunTrust Financial Centre Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: 769-7501 E-mail: tgallion@laborlawyers.com DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Sanders Supporters' Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Connolly, writing for California Network, reports that a suit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will proceed. The class action was filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters. The suit makes several claims against the DNC and Ms. Schultz. Sanders supporters cried foul from the start. From the debate schedule to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's obvious bias, some Democrats felt disenfranchised. How could the primary be fair? When the primary started, things only became worse. Accusations of election fraud and deception became strident. Sanders supporters were dismissed as crackpots. And that would have been the end except for the hacking of the DNC database. A hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC database and released their most sensitive emails and other documents. Wikileaks also released documents which showed the same; the proof was there. Behind the scenes, the Schultz and the DNC had been working from the start to suppress the Sanders campaign and coronate Hillary Clinton as the party's nominee. While portraying themselves as impartial facilitators of the primary, the DNC was shockingly partisan. Now, Sanders supporters are seeking their day in court. The suit argues Ms. Schultz and the DNC committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, a violation of fiduciary responsibility, and failure to protect sensitive donor data. A hearing was set to be held on August 23 to review evidence in the case. If enough evidence is present, the case will proceed. Ms. Schultz and the DNC are attempting to delay the proceedings until September. Every delay reduces the potential damage the case could have on the Clinton's general election chances. However, a finding against Schultz and the DNC could have disastrous long-term consequences for the party. It would affirm what many accuse the DNC of being, an establishment apparatus that does not represent the people. Such a loss of confidence in the party could lead to the rise of a new progressive party to the left of the Democratic Party. This could make it more difficult for Democrats to win elections at all, and open the way for Republican dominance in government. However, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. The party will need to undertake rapid and drastic reforms if it wants to survive. Given the inertia in the establishment, this seems highly unlikely. The class action suit, if it proceeds will probably be settled out of court with no admission of guilt, a common result. Regardless of what happens in court, the DNC will need to address corruption concerns or it will continue to lose support. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in Weinstat-Nathan Case Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the class action lawsuit by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS remains pending. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Class Certification Bid in "Hildebrand" Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class certification motion in the lawsuit by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS remains pending. On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the express warranty cause of action, which was denied. The Court held four days of hearings during January and February 2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court scheduled further hearings in the matter for August 2016. DIRECTORS GUILD: Faces "Grossman" Class Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Directors Guild of America Inc. and Trustees of the DGA Producer Health Plan. The case is captioned Michael Grossman, Michael Ludin and all similarly situated members and covered beneficiaries of defendant's health plan v. Directors Guild of America Inc. and Trustees of the DGA Producer Health Plan, Case No. 5:16-cv-01840- GW-SP (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2016). Michael Grossman and Michael Ludin are pro se plaintiffs. DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Wants to Notify Members of Class Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SEBASTIAN VALDOVINOS; JOSE CARRILLO; ABELINO SOLARIO; and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated individuals v. DL BUILDERS, INC.; DAVID HALVORSEN, Case No. 5:15-cv-O4256-RMW (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to approve a notice to potential class members and consent, pursuant to a conditional settlement of the matter. On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants setting forth First and Second Causes of Action for overtime, and minimum wage Violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs are laborers and semi-skilled workers, who worked for DL Builders remodeling homes and apartments. The matter was settled with the named Plaintiffs at a mediation held on June 20, 2016. The settlement is conditioned upon preliminary approval by the Court of the Defendants' proposed compensation of potential class members for unpaid overtime hours worked, pursuant to the FLSA. At the time of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs had a motion pending before the Court for conditional certification of the potential class. The matter is now set for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement on September 30, 2016. The Condition Certification Motion, as well as a Motion to Strike, are also pending hearing on that date. The Court will commence a hearing on September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fV4dtMTh The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert David Baker Esq. ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC. 80 South White Road San Jose, CA 95127 Telephone: (408) 251-3400 Facsimile: (408) 251-3401 E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge is Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the lawsuit styled David Stamer, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), continuing hearing of Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to Oct. 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. According to docket entry made by the Clerk on August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff is given to and including Feb. 6, 2017 to amend all pleadings and to add any additional parties. The Defendant is given until March 6, 2017, to amend all pleadings and to add any additional parties. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OqD2TOlK EASY MOBILE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Freeman" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JONNA FREEMAN PLAINTIFF v. EASY MOBILE LABS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00018-GNS (W.D. Ken), the Hon. Judge Greg N. Stivers entered an order: 1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, stay and compel arbitration; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. In lieu of staying the proceedings, the case is dismissed without prejudice to the parties' right to move to re-open the case for entry of an arbitration award or for any other relief to which the parties may be entitled. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1pdqwo6b EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive 401(k) Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Iacurci, writing for Investment News, reports that Edward Jones is being sued by a participant in the company's 401(k) plan for allegedly causing employees to pay high fees for investment management and record-keeping services that supposedly cost them millions in retirement savings. Many of the allegations in proposed class-action lawsuit, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co. L.P. et al, which was filed Aug. 19 in Missouri district court, will be familiar to those following other excessive-fee cases against sponsors of multibillion-dollar 401(k) plans. The Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and Deferred Compensation Plan had nearly $4 billion in assets and 36,000 participants as of year-end 2014. The plaintiff claims unreasonable fees paid to the plan record keeper, Mercer HR Services Inc., lost $8 million in aggregate retirement savings over the proposed class period, Aug. 19, 2010 through the present. Further, the plan offered high-cost mutual fund share classes when lower-cost alternatives were available for identical funds, leading to $13 million in excessive fees, according to the complaint. Participants allegedly would have saved tens of millions more dollars if assets were invested in collective investment trust funds and separately managed accounts, the plaintiff claims. Additionally, until 2013, Edward Jones allegedly only offered actively managed mutual funds on the investment menu, without inclusion of lower-cost index funds. Fiduciaries also failed to offer a stable value fund as a cash-preservation option, selecting a money market fund instead, which lost participants "over 12% of their buying power," according to the complaint. The lawsuit continues a barrage of litigation filed against corporations in recent weeks for fiduciary breach in their retirement plans. Another major brokerage, Morgan Stanley, was targeted on Aug. 19 in a $150 million lawsuit, and financial services companies such as Neuberger Berman, Franklin Templeton, New York Life Insurance Co. and American Century Investments have seen similar legal action since June. UNIQUE ALLEGATION One seemingly unique aspect to the case is an allegation over how a distribution relationship between Edward Jones and mutual fund companies influenced its 401(k) fund choice. Edward Jones maintains relationships with "partners" and "preferred partners" at the retail brokerage level, whereby the former receives millions in revenue-sharing payments from fund managers in return for benefits such as "greater access to certain information about its business practices, frequent interactions with Edward Jones financial advisers, marketing support and educational presentations," according to the lawsuit. Edward Jones receives a financial benefit for "keeping preferred partners happy, so to speak," and one other benefit the company bestows "seems to be inclusion in the 401(k) plan for Edward Jones employees," Mark Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- associate attorney at Bailey Glasser, the plaintiff's law firm, said. Bailey Glasser is responsible for the litigation involving Neuberger and Franklin. "We're not alleging the payment is going on within the plan assets, but we are alleging the preferred partner relationship is the reason why those funds are being included in the plan," Mr. Boyko said. Of the 401(k) plan's 53 different investment options, at least 40 are managed by the partners or preferred partners. And of the 12 mutual fund families listed in Edward Jones' 2015 revenue-sharing disclosure, eight -- American Funds, Franklin Templeton, Invesco, The Hartford, MFS, Lord Abbett, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs -- have funds in the 401(k) plan, representing approximately 80% of plan assets, the plaintiff claims. The 18 investments of American Funds, which paid the most in revenue sharing to Edwards Jones in 2015, hold nearly 50% of plan assets. The plan offers eight actively managed large-cap funds managed by the preferred partners, for example. Collective underperformance for these and the plan's other large-cap equity funds resulted in more than $100 million in lost money compared to their S&P 500 benchmark and index alternatives, according to the lawsuit. John Boul, spokesman for Edward Jones, said allegations that the firm violated its fiduciary duties or engaged in prohibited transactions related to plan assets "are not true." "At the heart of the lawsuit is the allegation that the firm profits from the plan's investments by retaining for itself revenue sharing payments paid by product partners. This allegation is patently false," Mr. Boul said. Mr. Boul also said the lawsuit "makes numerous faulty assumptions, contains factual errors and inaccurately characterizes the manner in which the plan is administered. None of these has any evidentiary support and will be proven to be demonstrably false." OPEN FLOODGATES While the vast majority of such litigation occurs in the corporate 401(k) market, a torrent of filings over a two-week period in August against university 403(b) plans indicates a broadening in scope for excessive-fee lawsuits. "The floodgates are open, and this is just the beginning," according to Marcia Wagner, principal at The Wagner Law Group. "When the tort bar takes hold, it takes hold." Of course, just because a complaint is filed doesn't mean there's merit to the allegations -- the truth typically comes out in more advanced stages of litigation, Ms. Wagner said. However, there's no end in sight for excessive-fee litigation, and the extent to which such lawsuits will upend the retirement industry is unknown, she added. "Our courts are really clogged right now, and if we start having lawsuits against RIAs, broker-dealers and plan sponsors, our court system will get slower and potentially more erratic," Ms. Wagner said. "This is the beginning of something big and no one will predict how the courts will be able to handle the onslaught." EMPIRE DISTRICT: MOU Reached to Resolve Kansas Suit --------------------------------------------------- The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has reached an agreement to resolve a class action case in Kansas. On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. The shareholder filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2016. The complaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failing to obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completing the Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxy statement. The complaint seeks various relief, including an injunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges that Empire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches. On June 7, 2016, following arm's length negotiations, Empire and other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for the settlement, subject to court approval, of all claims asserted in the complaint against all defendants. In connection with the MOU, Empire agreed to make additional disclosures related to the Merger in the proxy statement (which were made on June 8, 2016). Empire and the other defendants that entered into the MOU did so solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they committed any violation of law or engaged in any wrongful acts alleged in the complaint. The parties to the MOU have agreed to attempt in good faith to finalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and to present the stipulation of settlement to the Court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court. The stipulation of settlement will provide for, among other things, certification of the alleged class as a non-opt-out class action and an award of plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The stipulation of settlement will also provide for the release of any and all claims arising out of or relating to the Merger. The settlement is subject to final Court approval following notice to the class members. There can be no assurance that the settling parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the Merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with any certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuit are without merit. EMSP LLC: Class Certification in "Funez" Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order In the lawsuit captioned JESSICA MARILU ROSALEZ FUNEZ, ET AL. the Plaintiff, v. E.M.S.P, LLC, EDWIN A. MIRANDA, ET AL. the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01922-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), granting in part and deferring in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The following Class is certified: "All individuals who worked for E.M.S.P., LLC at any time since March 6, 2013 and were classified as independent contractors." Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the names, current or last known addresses, and e-mail addresses of potential collective action plaintiffs within twenty days of the filing of this Order. Parties shall meet and confer upon the notice and consent form to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Within 20 days of the entry of the Order and prior to distributing notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice to the Court along with an appropriate motion for the adoption of such notice. If the parties are unable to agree on a joint proposed notice, the Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each submit their proposal to the Court within 20 days of the Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zCnI3XWY ENERGY RECOVERY: Mediation Continued to October 12 -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the parties' request to conduct a private mediation prior to a decision on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss the case entitled, IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 3:15-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The parties attempted to schedule a mediation in September 2016, but have been unsuccessful. The earliest date on which all parties are available to mediate the case with the agreed-upon mediator is October 12, 2016. The parties have agreed that a case management conference be rescheduled to a date after the mediation. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/kOocqkfrom Leagle.com. Joseph Sabatino, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Henry Low, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky, pro hac vice, Adam Marc Apton, Levi Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Punzalan -- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C.. Thomas C. Mowdy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Thomas Rooney, et al., Defendants, represented by David Malcolm Furbush -- david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & James M. Lindfelt -- james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. ERNST & YOUNG: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that Ernst & Young LLP cannot require its employees to give up their rights to pursue work-related claims together, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 22, giving a major boost to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board's campaign against so-called class action waivers. Companies have increasingly included provisions in employment contracts forcing workers to arbitrate claims individually as a way to avoid the cost of litigating class actions. The NLRB has struck down such requirements imposed by dozens of companies, including American Express Co., Citigroup Inc. and Domino's Pizza Inc. With its 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco became the second appellate court to sign off on the NLRB's position that federal labor law prohibits workers' arbitration agreements from including class action waivers. But two appellate courts previously rejected the NLRB's view, making it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule on the enforceability of such waivers. The lawyers for Ernst & Young and the plaintiffs were not immediately available for comment. Judge Sidney Thomas, chief of the 9th circuit, said Ernst & Young's arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act by making workers arbitrate work-related claims as individuals in separate proceedings. The law guarantees workers' rights to act together, he said. Former Ernst & Young employees Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel had claimed in a proposed class action that Ernst & Young did not pay them overtime as required by federal and California law. Ernst & Young, a London-based professional services provider, argued the Federal Arbitration Act, a 90-year-old law that says courts cannot disfavor arbitration, trumps the National Labor Relations Act and entitles it to enforce its employment contract requiring Morris and McDaniel to pursue their claims individually in arbitration. Judge Thomas said in the Aug. 22 opinion that those two federal laws are not in conflict. The case is not about whether the claims should be heard in court or arbitration, but about a contract that is fatally flawed because it would deny workers their rights to act as a group. "The same infirmity would exist if the contract required disputes to be resolved through casting lots, coin toss, duel, trial by ordeal or any other dispute resolution mechanism, if the contract limited resolution to that mechanism and required separate individual proceedings," Judge Thomas said. In dissent, Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said workers could still exercise their right to act collectively in individual arbitration by hiring the same lawyers and sharing resources. The case is Morris v. Ernst & Young, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-16599. ESPN: Ex-College Athlete Loses Bid to Revive Publicity Rights Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Cushing, writing for techdirt, reports that Javon Marshall -- a former college athlete spearheading a putative class action against several broadcasters for uncompensated use of his likeness -- has just seen the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court send him (and everyone "similarly situated") back home without a parting gift. Mr. Marshall -- like many others who believe the mere existence of intellectual property protections entitles them to a paycheck -- sued a long list of broadcasters for allegedly violating the Lanham Act and the Tennessee "right of publicity" law by not paying him and other athletes for using his name and "image" in game broadcasts and advertising. Mr. Marshall also claimed the NCAA's waiver student-athletes sign is "vague and unenforceable." That may very well be, but that claim was never addressed by the plaintiff and the NCAA was never a defendant. It only served as an introduction to a long list of alleged violations that the lower court determined to be baseless accusations. The Appeals Court makes short work of Mr. Marshall's attempt to have the lawsuit revived, pointing out in a wonderful opening paragraph just how unrealisitic his claims are. The first sentence alone indicates how far from legal reality Marshall's class action lawsuit strayed. To state the plaintiffs' theory in this case is nearly to refute it. Going on, the court punches a dramatic hole in Mr. Marshall's flawed logic. The theory begins with the assertion that college football and basketball players have a property interest in their names and images as they appear in television broadcasts of games in which the players are participants. Thus, the plaintiffs conclude, those broadcasts are illegal unless licensed by every player on each team. Whether referees, assistant coaches, and perhaps even spectators have the same rights as putative licensors is unclear from the plaintiffs' briefs (and, by all appearances, to the plaintiffs themselves). Very briefly addressing the plaintiff's arguments, the court waves them away in two sentences, offering its wholehearted support of the lower court's decision. In any event, the plaintiffs seek to assert claims under Tennessee law, the Sherman Act, and the Lanham Act on behalf of a putative class of collegiate players nationwide. The defendants -- various college athletic conferences and television networks, among others -- responded in the district court with a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in a notably sound and thorough opinion. The court goes on to call the plaintiffs' claims under Tennessee law "legal fantasy," pointing out that the state's "right of publicity" specifically exempts sports broadcasts. The plaintiffs' common-law claim asserts a right never granted by the state. The Sherman Act antitrust claim fails because if a right doesn't exist, it can't be licensed in a noncompetitive fashion. The court saves its best comment for Mr. Marshall's trademark claim. That leaves the plaintiffs' claim under the Lanham Act, whose relevant provision bars the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness in commerce when doing so "is likely to cause confusion" as to whether the person endorses a product. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a)(1)(A). The theory here is that if, say, ESPN shows a banner for "Tostitos" at the bottom of the screen during a football game, then consumers might become confused as to whether all the players on the screen endorse Tostitos. Suffice it to say that ordinary consumers have more sense than the theory itself does. This futile lawsuit was perhaps encouraged by the relative success of a similar lawsuit against Electronic Arts for using the "likenesses" of players in its sports videogames. However, there's a crucial difference that factored into the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court's decision on behalf of the players: California's oft-abused "right of publicity" law which doesn't contain the same exemptions as Tennessee's. And in that case, there's still hope of a rehearing which might tilt the court towards finding California's law must defer to the First Amendment, rather than the other way around. EXECUTIVE CUT: "Ornelas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Ornelas, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees under the California Private Attorneys General Act v. The Executive Cut and Shave, LLC, John Carnevali, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC631843 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a beauty shop located in Canoga Park, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Hill, Esq. INHOUSE CO. 5350 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 452-4430 E-mail: ben@inhouseco.com FIAT CHRYSLER: 6th Cir. Affirms Pacificas Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that auto manufacturer FCA US had no legal duty to warn owners or offer repairs for an alleged defect in a line of minivans made by its predecessor Chrysler, a federal appeals court has ruled. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action by owners of 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacificas, which alleged the vehicles had defective engine cradles prone to rust and corrosion. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, are engaged in discovery and no trial date has been scheduled. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been scheduled. FRESENIUS MEDICAL: AG Sues Over Kidney Dialysis Product Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Kentucky's attorney general is accusing a medical company of Medicaid fraud for allegedly promoting a kidney dialysis product it knew was harmful to patients. Attorney General Andy Beshear is suing Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. His lawsuit, filed in Franklin County Circuit Court, says Fresenius is the nation's largest provider of kidney dialysis and renal care products, treatment and services. Mr. Beshear says the company put patients at risk with its GranuFlo product, which was used in screening blood to remove impurities during dialysis. He says the company concealed the product's risks of causing heart attacks, strokes or arrhythmia. He says the federal government issued a 2012 recall for the product. Fresenius spokesman Kent Jarrell said the company's actions "were appropriate, responsible and consistent with the company's commitment to patient safety." GE INSPECTION: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two Massachusetts engineers are suing a technology company, alleging violation of the company's paid time off plan. Sumit Kumar and Randy Johnson filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 3 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against GE Inspection Technologies LP, alleging violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. According to the complaint, Messrs. Kumar and Johnson earned paid time off (PTO) under the GE Inspection Technologies' plan. The suit says they were not paid the PTO money they earned during their employment. The plaintiffs allege GE Inspection Technologies deleted all their PTO that had been earned under the traditional policy and failed to pay their paid leaves that they had earned under the company- defined PTO policy. Messrs. Kuman and Johnson seeks a trial by jury, certification as a class action, lost wages, plus liquidated damages, attorney fees and legal costs, plus such other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by attorneys Michael Bace -- mjb@bacelaw.com -- of Bace Law Group LLC in Boston and by John R. Bita, III of Law Office of Boston. The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 3. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Case number 1:16-cv-11589 GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Pasciolla" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General Nutrition Centers, Inc. The case is captioned Samantha Pasciolla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01313-MRH (W.D. Penn., August 26, 2016). General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is a commercial enterprise focused on the retail sale of health and nutrition related products, including vitamins, supplements, minerals, herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energy products. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com GOLDEN GATE: $750,000 Settlement Preliminarily Approved ------------------------------------------------------- In the case of BRANDY WELCH (formerly known as BRANDY ROODE) and HEATHER BLACKMUN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE CASINO, LLC, d/b/a GOLDEN GATE HOTEL & CASINO; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-01089-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.), the settlement in the maximum amount of US$750,000.00 as reached between the parties is preliminarily found to be fair, reasonable and adequate in light of the facts and law presented. District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II also approved this Settlement Class: Nevada Class: All persons employed by Defendant who were non-union, non-exempt, hourly employees who were eligible for overtime and incentives under Defendant's pay plans and who were employed in such a position between December 17, 2009 and the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement. FLSA Collective Class: All persons employed by Defendant who were non-union, non-exempt, hourly employees who were eligible for overtime and incentives under Defendant's pay plans and who were employed in such a position between December 17, 2009 and the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement. In the case, Thierman Buck, LLP are appointed and designated as counsel for the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class. CPT Group is appointed Claims Administrator and the preliminary approval is given to the payment of the Claims Administrator's fee. The Court also sets these dates for purposes of the proposed settlement of the class action: a. Defendant to provide a database containing the Class Member information to the Claims Administrator in electronic format by: August 29, 2016. b. Funding of Settlement by Defendant: 5 days following to effective date of Settlement. c. First mailing to Class: September 1, 2016. d. Deadline for filing claims: Must be postmarked by November 30, 2016. e. Deadline for objections: Must be postmarked by October 31, 2016. f. Deadline for exclusion: Must be received by Claims Administrator no later than October 31, 2016. g. Submission of Report of individual Claim Shares for Court Approval: by December 15, 2016. h. Plaintiff shall file memorandum of points and authorities in support of the settlement including attorney fees, costs and enhancements: December 9, 2016 (10 days before Final Settlement Hearing). i. Final Settlement Approval Hearing: January 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 7C. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/b8GGkNfrom Leagle.com. Brandy Welch, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP. Golden Gate Casino, LLC, Defendant, represented by Morris Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter F. Klett, III -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Michael N. Feder -- MFeder@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC. GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Casts Doubt on Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that a multibillion-dollar payday for Wall Street lawyers has gotten off to a rocky start. A highly anticipated class-action antitrust case accusing 22 banks of rigging the very bedrock of the US financial system was criticized by a judge on Aug. 22 for lacking specifics, but gave lawyers plenty of time to find them. Manhattan federal Judge Paul G. Gardephe told attorneys for the 55 plaintiffs he had doubts that the initial complaints "make out a plausible case of collusive or manipulative conduct," Judge Gardephe said. The plaintiffs, mostly institutional investors, accuse the banks of rigging the US Treasury markets to sell the debt for higher prices to clients. The three law firms who are temporary lead co-counsel are Quinn Emanuel, Cohen Milstein and Labaton & Sucharow. Lawyers say that a settlement could be upwards of $5 billion if a trial gets decided in the plaintiffs' favor. The civil suit is kicking off while US and European prosecutors are investigating their roles in setting debt prices. While the investigation began in June of last year, settlement talks aren't expected to begin until December at the earliest, one source told The Post. According to Law360, defendants include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., and several other financial giants. The case is In re: Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, case number 2673, before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. GREEN TREE: "Kamimura" Case Extends Submission of Discovery Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lee C. Kamimura, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Tree Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH (D. Nev.), District Judge Carl W. Hoffman granted the parties' stipulation to extend the deadline to submit their discovery plan and scheduling order to 45 days after Defendant has filed an answer to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was due August 22, 2016. The Court observed that due to the changing nature of the pleadings, the possibility of further dispositive motions that may narrow the issues in the case, and the parties' willingness to cooperate on efforts to streamline discovery in the matter, good cause exists to extend the deadline for the Parties to submit a proposed discovery plan until after Defendant has responded to the Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/aVXh89from Leagle.com. Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger, Haines & Krieger, LLC & Michael Kind -- mkind@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Ditech Financal LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano & Wilson. GROUP HEALTH: Faces "Wechsler" Class Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Group Health Incorporated (GHI) and EmblemHealth, Inc. The case is captioned Lauren Wechsler, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Group Health Incorporated (GHI) and EmblemHealth, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06737-GBD (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2016). The Defendants operate a health insurance and wellness company headquartered at 55 Water Street in Lower Manhattan, New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Michele Chin, Esq. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW GUARDIANSHIP CLINIC 55 Fifth Ave, 19th Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 255-7852 Facsimile: (212) 790-0256 E-mail: nchin@law.nyc.gov HCA HOLDINGS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA Holdings, Inc. and Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Kendall Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:16-cv-23680-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendants own and operate a healthcare company based in Nashville, Tennessee. 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 HM OPERATING: Settlement in "Comeens" Case Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRIS COMEENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HM OPERATING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:14-cv-00521-JHE (N.D. Ala.), Magistrate Judge John H. England, III approved on a final basis the parties' settlement agreement. The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation of the Order for two years from the date of judgment. The Plaintiffs sue under the Worker's Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") alleging that Defendants were "a single employer" for purposes of the act and had violated its provisions when they closed down dismissed Defendant HM Operating, Inc.'s bedroom furniture plant in Haleyville, Alabama, without giving the statutorily required sixty-day notice to the workers. The class, as defined by the settlement agreement, is: All employees of HM Operating, Inc. (MH) who do not opt out and who were terminated without cause on or after March 12, 2014, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, the plant closing at the facility located at 7155 State Highway 13, Haleyville, Alabama 35565, which occurred on or about March 12, 2014. The Court held that there does not appear to have been any collusion in the case. Both sides are represented by counsel, who have zealously prosecuted and defended the case, and the settlement was ultimately reached through arms' length negotiation with a mediator. Further, the expected complexity, expense, and duration of the litigation weigh very strongly in favor of settlement. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/Uxk2sLfrom Leagle.com. Chris Comeens, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Mary E. Olsen -- molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. & Michael Vance McCrary -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm, P.C.. CHIKOL, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carole G. Miller -- cmiller@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC, Seth J. Kleinman -- seth.kleinman@kayescholer.com -- KAY SCHOLER LLP, pro hac vice, Sheldon Louis Solow -- sheldon.solow@kayescholer.com -- KAYE SCHOLER LLP, pro hac vice, Janell M. Ahnert -- jahnert@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC & Patrick Joseph Mulligan -- pmulligan@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC. Linsalata Capital Partners Fund IV LP, et al., Defendants, represented by Edward S. Sledge IV -- tfetner@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, John W. Hargrove -- jhargrove@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Mary Ann Couch -- macouch@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS. HOECHST MARION: Settles Cipro Class Action, Oct. 7 Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- If You Paid for the Antibiotic Cipro in California You Could Get Money from a Class Action Settlement A partial Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving the antibiotic drug Cipro. The lawsuit claims that Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. (the "Defendants") violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing not to compete with each other and keeping lower cost generic versions of Cipro off the market. The Defendants deny this. No one is claiming that Cipro is unsafe or ineffective. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. have agreed to pay $100 million into a Settlement Fund (the "Fund"). After deducting attorneys' fees, costs, and other fees and expenses, the Fund will be distributed to Class members who file valid claims. Payments will be based on the number of valid claims filed and how much you paid for Cipro. It is estimated that consumers will receive at least $25 each. The Settlement Agreement, available at the website www.CiproSettlement.com, contains more details. The Settlement Agreement involves only Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc., Bayer Corporation previously settled. The case will continue against Barr Laboratories, Inc. WHO IS INCLUDED? Generally you are included if you paid a pharmacy, doctor's office, or hospital for some or all of a Cipro prescription in California between January 8, 1997 and December 31, 2005. Excluded from the Class are all persons who obtained Cipro through MediCal Prescription Drug Program, anyone who purchased Cipro in order to resell it, governmental entities, the Defendants and their related entities, all purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat co-payment and who would have paid the same co-payment for a generic substitute under the terms of their health insurance policy, and all persons or parties that have excluded themselves from the Class. HOW TO GET A PAYMENT Class Members must submit a Claim Form to get a payment. If you submitted a Claim Form and received payment in the Bayer settlement, visit the website www.CiproSettlement.com for more information. The information from your previous Claim Form will be used to calculate your share of this settlement. The Claim Form, and instructions on how to submit it, are available at www.CiproSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-404-0135. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is December 15, 2016. YOUR OTHER RIGHTS AND OPTIONS If you are a Class Member, your right to exclude yourself from the Class (to opt out) expired in 2004, when the Class was certified and the original notice was disseminated. You may comment on or object to the proposed Settlement. To do so, you must act by September 23, 2016. Details on how to comment or object are at www.CiproSettlement.com The Court will hold a hearing on October 7, 2016 to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement and whether to approve Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of up to one third of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses, and service awards for the Class Representatives. FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A CLAIM FORM Visit: www.CiproSettlement.com Call 1-866-404-0135 HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wandersee" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angie Wandersee moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANGIE WANDERSEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HORIZON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a HORIZON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:16-cv-01176-NJ (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff also asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) 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 contends, 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 asserts 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 contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court 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=pc3WTO3q 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 ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended securities class action complaint remains pending. Three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv- 04860-PGG and Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al Docket No. 1:15 - cv 06658, have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (each, a "Class Action" and, together, the "Class Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and prospects. The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 7th Cir. Affirmed Class Cert. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision which certified a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the defendants' petition to appeal, and on August 4, 2016, affirmed the District Court's decision on all counts. "We will continue to aggressively defend this case, including the possibility of further challenges to class certification," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Bid Filed in Tenn. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no class certification materials have been filed to date in a purported class action case in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee. In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland were named as defendants in a lawsuit, later dismissed without prejudice in November 2015, captioned Del Monte Fresh Products N.A., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the Plaintiff asserted substantially similar allegations to those raised in the Kleen Products action. Likewise, in June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending each action. "However, because the Kleen Products action is in the discovery stage and the Tennessee and Ashley Furniture actions are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said. J CHOO: Court Allows FACTA Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------- Merrit M. Jones, Esq. -- merrit.jones@bryancave.com -- and Marcy J. Bergman, Esq. -- marcy.bergman@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a recent federal court ruling allows a class action lawsuit to proceed against luxury fashion retailer Jimmy Choo for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). This ruling, which will likely be appealed, has important implications for other consumer class action lawsuits against retailers. Jimmy Choo was accused of violating FACTA by printing credit card expiration dates on customer receipts in Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc., S.D. Fla. Case No. 15-cv-81487. Jimmy Choo argued that the plaintiff had no standing to sue because she was not damaged when the retailer printed her credit card expiration date on her receipt. The court disagreed, holding that the consumer was sufficiently damaged to maintain the action as soon as soon as the receipt was printed. Companies facing lawsuits alleging FACTA violations should be aware that although the U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), that a plaintiff must show that an injury was both "concrete and particularized" and cannot rely on a procedural violation to allege injury in fact, there are instances where an injury may exist solely by virtue of a breach of a statutory prohibition. Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said that in certain circumstances--such as in this case involving Jimmy Choo -- "the violation of a procedural right granted by statute" is sufficient to constitute injury for purposes of standing. FACTA prohibits businesses from printing more than the last five digits of any customer's card number or card expiration date on any receipt provided to the cardholder. Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 per violation. The statute excludes receipts that are handwritten or imprinted, where the only method of recording the credit card number is by such means. JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in "Shore" Suit Has Initial Okay ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL SHORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. d/b/a/ CHASE, and PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60125-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James I. Cohn entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2. certifying class for settlement purposes; 3. directing the issuance of class notice; and 4. scheduling a final approval hearing. The Settlement Class consists of: "all individuals who, on or after December 3, 2013: (a) was a borrower on a home loan that was secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on property located within Alabama, Florida, or Georgia; and (b) was sent a reinstatement quote letter from Chase, Phelan, or any other entity acting on behalf of Chase or Phelan." Excluded from the Settlement Class are any: (i) individuals who are or were during the Class Period officers or directors of the Defendants or any of their respective affiliates; (ii) any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States or any State, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all borrowers who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with Section 13 of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xFSvJZfR KELLY SERVICES: "Gaffers" Suit Wins Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN GAFFERS, Plaintiff, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-10128-DML-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action; and 2. denying Defendants' renewed motion to stay and compel arbitration. The Court further ordered that: 1. the Defendants must furnish to counsel for the plaintiffs the last known post office and email addresses of the potential members of the described class on or before September 7, 2016; 2. the plaintiff shall deliver notice promptly to putative class members by United States mail, email, or both. The notice shall state that interested persons may opt in to this litigation on or before November 7, 2016, but not thereafter; and 3. counsel for the parties appear before the Court for a case management conference on September 8, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. Jonathan Gaffers is employed by Defendant as a home-based call center agent. He filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that Kelly is not paying him for the time it takes for him to log on to Kelly's computer applications so he can perform his job, and for certain other time spent solving technical connection problems, all of which extends his total work time beyond 40 hours during most weeks. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OIDOSTiv KILLION & SONS: Status Hearing in "Baughman" Suit on Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Cathy Bissoon granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and motion for a status conference filed in the lawsuit entitled SETH BAUGHMAN v. KILLION & SONS WELL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01143-CB (W.D. Pa.). The Plaintiff's motion for permission to submit an Excel spreadsheet in support of certification is denied as moot. A telephonic status conference will be held on September 16, 2016, at 2:15 p.m. Judge Bissoon ordered that at the Conference, counsel must be prepared to discuss a finalization of the written class- definition; any informational exchanges required to identify putative class members and their current/last known mailing addresses; the form, language and timing of the collective-action notice, as well as the duration of the opt-in period; the establishment of other appropriate case management deadlines moving forward; and whether this case might benefit from an additional round of alternative dispute resolution. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=owPZ5vMS KOREAN RAMEN: Samyang's Accord with Indirect Buyers Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick granted the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement in the case entitled, In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Indirect Purchaser Actions, Case No. C- 13-04115-WHO (N.D. Calif.). Judge Orrick held that the settlement was entered into by the parties in good faith. He declared that the settlement class provisionally certified by Order of the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order is certified as a settlement class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and is comprised of: "All individuals and entities that indirectly purchased Korean Noodles in the United States and its territories including, without limitation, in the states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Hawaii, from one or more Defendants from May 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010." The Court's certification of the Indirect Settlement Class is without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to contest certification of any other class proposed in the action. The Court approved the Escrow Account, into which Samyang Korea has deposited a total of $500,000 as the Settlement Amount for the Indirect Settlement Class, plus accrued interest, as a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section. Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of $216,673 as partial reimbursement of costs incurred in the prosecution of the litigation. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the enforcement of the Order and Final Judgment; (b) the enforcement of the Indirect Settlement Agreement; (c) any application for distribution of funds, attorneys' fees, or reimbursement made by Plaintiffs' Counsel; (d) any application for incentive awards for the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs; and (e) the distribution of the settlement proceeds. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/PYVzwQfrom Leagle.com. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.ramenclassaction.com/ The Defendants are Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America Inc.; Ottogi Co. Ltd.; Ottogi America, Inc.; and Samyang Foods Co., Ltd.. Sam Yang (USA), Inc.-Paldo Co. Ltd.; and Korea Yakult Co. Ltd., were initially named as defendants in this litigation, but were dismissed by the Court without prejudice. To date, only Samyang has agreed to settle the litigation. Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America Inc.; Ottogi Co. Ltd.; and Ottogi America, Inc. have not agreed to settle, so the litigation is continuing against them. There is no claim filing at this time. Rockman Company (USA), Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Manuel Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP & Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP. M.T. Trading Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Manuel Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP & Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. The Plaza Company, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Joshua L. Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Kevin Francis Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Michael M. Goldberg -- mgoldberg@softtissuelawyer.com -- Goldberg Law PC, Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Stephanie Yunjin Cho -- scho@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Susan Gilah Kupfer -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Anthony An, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gerald S. Ohn, Law Offices of Gerald S. Ohn, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Young Wook Ryu, Law Office of Young W. Ryu APC & Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP. Nong Shim Company, Ltd, et al., Defendants, represented by Anne Choi Goodwin -- anne.goodwin@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Edward Ghiyun Kim -- ed.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs, pro hac vice, J. Brady Dugan -- brady.dugan@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Joon Yong Kim -- joon.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Patrick Grasser -- joseph.grasser@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs US) LLP, Kate E. Kim -- kate.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Mark C. Dosker -- mark.dosker@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. Ottogi Company, Ltd., et al., Defendants, represented by Joel Steven Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Julian Wolfe Kleinbrodt -- jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, LLP, Minae Yu -- myu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher & Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. SamYang Foods Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne Mann, Mayer Brown LLP. Sam Yang (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward W. Suh -- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates & Michael Kwonchun Suh -- mksuhlawfirm@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates. Korea Yakult, doing business as Paldo America, Defendant, represented by Matthew David Taggart -- mtaggart@rmlawpartners.com -- Attorney at Law. LANDRYS INC: Settlement in "Saechao" Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDRYS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, No. C 15-00815 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup granted the parties' class settlement agreement and the incentive award for the lead plaintiff while denied in part the request for attorney's fees and costs. In the case, Plaintiff Mouang Saechao asserts various claims for wage-and-hour violations against defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., which operated Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto, a restaurant in Berkeley. The settlement provides for: -- a $500,000 cash payout, to be allocated among class members after deductions for attorney's fees, costs, an incentive award to Saechao, -- a payment of $9,000 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (with $3,000 to be paid to PAGA-eligible class members), and payroll taxes. -- the remaining funds to be distributed to class members based on their pro rata shares of three categories of alleged injuries. The Court held that an incentive award of $500 for Saechao is appropriate. Saechao dedicated more than forty hours to this litigation, including preparing for and attending a two-day deposition and several lengthy settlement conferences. As to the attorney's fees and costs, the court acknowledged that the counsel undertook significant work and costs, in excess of the amount sought to be recovered. Thus, although the order finds that no departure from the benchmark of 25% under the traditional common-fund approach is warranted, it finds that an award of $125,000 in fees and $50,000 in costs is reasonable. The disbursement for fees and costs shall not be paid until all class members have received what they are entitled to receive, and there is no further work to be done. An order referring the dispute over attorney's fees to a magistrate judge will follow. The Court directed PEG&C to file by September 1 a formal motion, noticed on the 35-day calendar, seeking to have the award of fees and costs held in trust pending resolution of the lien. Also by September 1, the parties were to submit a stipulated form of judgment that specifically identifies the individuals who are subject to the judgment herein as well as those class members that are not subject to the judgment because notice could not be delivered. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/zpouiVfrom Leagle.com. Mouang Saechao, Plaintiff, represented by Katharine Chao -- kathy@chaolegal.com -- Chao Legal & Cari Ann Cohorn -- cohorn@cohornlaw.com -- Cohorn Law. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Defendant, represented by Aaron Nathan Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Janet Lynn Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Evelyn F. Wang -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Nicholas Anthony Murray -- nicholasmurray@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Tracy Thompson -- tracythompson@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Third Party Lienholder, Miscellaneous, represented by Randy Scott Erlewine -- rse@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP. LINN COUNTY, OR: Court Set to Rule on Motions on September 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy says he will rule by Sept. 19 on a number of motions in the county's lawsuit over management of state forest lands, including the question of whether the case will be certified as a class action. Judge Murphy made that announcement after listening to more than three hours of testimony during a hearing on Aug. 17. He had heard other motions in the case in an earlier hearing in early July. At issue is a March lawsuit filed by Linn County against the state Department of Forestry. The suit involves state forest trust lands, property that was conveyed to the state by the counties decades ago. In all, 15 Oregon counties include at least some of these lands. Linn County's lawsuit argues that the state made a promise to the counties that it would manage the lands for "greatest permanent value." At one time, Linn County argues, that meant maximizing timber harvests from those lands; money from those harvests flowed to the counties. In recent years, however, the state has broadened its definition of "greatest permanent value" to include other goals as well, including recreation, habitat protection and riparian area preservation. The amount of money flowing to the counties has dropped as timber harvests have fallen, and Linn County says that amounts to a breach of the contract between the counties and the state. The lawsuit estimates the damages to the affected counties at about $1.4 billion. Linn County was represented on Aug. 17 by John DiLorezo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- and Chris McCracken -- chrismccracken@dwt.com -- of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland. Representing the state were senior assistant attorneys general Scott Kaplan and Frank Hammond. The state's attorneys argued on Aug. 17 that the suit should be dismissed because the term "greatest permanent value" no longer refers simply to economic issues. Linn County's attorneys, however, emphasized numerous times during the day that the case is not about changing state policies. They said it is solely about what Linn County sees as a breach of contract and loss of income to the affected counties. In addition, attorneys clashed on the issue of whether the suit should be certified as a class action. (Linn County commissioners have said that if the class is certified, affected counties still would have the option to opt out of the suit. Other counties with state forest trust lands are Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington counties.) The state believes there are enough differences among all of the counties and the deeds involved in the development of the state forests to not certify the lawsuit as a class action. The state's attorneys contended that if certified as a class, the lawsuit might devolve into 183 different mini-trials. They noted that each forest's management plan takes into account mandates such as the Endangered Species Act, riparian issues, type of trees that grow in the area, soil types and soil slopes. They said conditions vary from county to county, parcel to parcel and stand to stand. But the county's attorneys countered that while individual tracts may be managed differently than others, as a whole the state forest plan is implemented region by region, not deed by deed. State attorneys also questioned the fact that the early costs of the lawsuit are being borne by timber companies. Mr. Kaplan argued that the lawsuit had been framed by private timber interests months before Linn County came on board. He said those companies have economic interests that might not be the same as those of the general public. But Mr. DiLorenzo said it's not unusual for lawsuits to be formulated over long periods of time by one group before being filed by another. He pointed to the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which paved the way for equal education for all children regardless of race. He said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had formulated the lawsuit well before the plaintiff became involved. "This is a veiled attempt by the state to discredit Linn County's motives," Mr. DiLorenzo said. "In our agreement with Linn County, Linn County calls all the shots." He added that the private companies have a vested interest not only in whether there are local timber sales to feed mills, but also that the county budget and other districts can provide adequate fire and law enforcement services. "They live here. Their employees live here," Mr. DiLorenzo said. "They are interested in having vibrant local communities." The private companies have agreed to help fund initial legal fees, but if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, Davis Wright Tremaine would then be paid based on a contingency fee. Before wrapping up the hearing on Aug. 17, Judge Murphy asked the attorneys how long they anticipate a trial might last. The plaintiffs thought two weeks and the state attorneys suggested four weeks. MARGRAF COLLECTION: Bloodworth Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bloodworth moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN BLOODWORTH Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARGRAF COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01174-JPS (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 states. The Plaintiff asserts 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 contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court 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=RlDUHkZV 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 MDL 2196: Mohawk Industries Settled Individual Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that in the case, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196, as of June 21, 2016: -- all appeals have been dismissed, provided that one request to reconsider remains pending; and -- the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the consolidated individual lawsuits. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers). All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws. On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and the trial court entered an order granting approval of this settlement on November 19, 2015. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers, and the trial court entered an order granting approval of this settlement on January 27, 2016. Following approval by the trial court, certain individual members of the indirect purchaser class sought to overturn the approval through an appeal to the Sixth Circuit of Appeals. As of June 21, 2016, all of these appeals have been dismissed, provided that one request to reconsider remains pending. As of June 21, 2016, the Company has also entered into settlement agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the consolidated individual lawsuits. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled the class actions and individual lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. MCLEOD EXPRESS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Downs" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MICHELLE D. DOWNS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McLEOD EXPRESS, LLC, and MARK R. McLEOD, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-02060-HAB (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Harold A. Baker entered an order denying Plaintiff's amended motion for conditional certification. At this time, the court denies the amended motion for conditional certification. However, Downs may refile her motion if she can show, through an opt-in plaintiff or otherwise, that at least one other similarly situated individual did not receive overtime pay for working more than forty hours a week. Downs has not met the "modest factual showing" required for conditional certification. Her declaration simply restates the essence of her allegations, and is not joined by even one other similarly situated individual. In Walden v. Carle Found. Hosp., Case No. 14-2095 (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff was joined by a consenting individual who "opted in" before the motion for conditional certification was filed. The Defendant opposed conditional certification, and the plaintiff filed a reply with the declaration of a third similarly situated individual. The Walden plaintiffs made a modest factual showing that others were subjected to the alleged unlawful practice. It does not take much, but it does take something more than Downs has presented. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CSxqdWVW MENZIES AVIATION: Settles Back-Pay Lawsuit for $8.2 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Gene Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, reports that several companies that provide transportation and hospitality services at or near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport have agreed to settle back-pay lawsuits alleging that they ignored the nation's first $15 minimum wage law after it took effect, deals that will put more than $12 million in the pockets of their current and former workers. The cases are among about two dozen filed against businesses that include airport staffing firms, rental car agencies, hotels and parking lots in SeaTac, where the airport is located. Since the city passed the nation's first $15-an-hour minimum wage law in 2013, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., and other cities have followed. Many employers questioned the law's validity and declined to immediately follow it. The state Supreme Court upheld the measure a year ago in a 5-4 ruling, and attorneys for the workers began filing lawsuits seeking back pay for the roughly two years that the companies failed to pay $15 an hour. Some businesses began paying the minimum wage following the ruling, but argued that it wasn't clear that they were required to fork over the retroactive pay. "Whenever you pass a labor law, you need it to be enforced for it to be real for the workers," said Nicole Vallestero Keenan, who worked on the SeaTac minimum wage campaign and now is the executive director of the Seattle-based Fair Work Center, a nonprofit that works on enforcing labor laws. "If you're living paycheck to paycheck and you receive $10,000 in back wages that are owed to you, that can be an enormous factor in changing one's life." The largest known settlement so far comes from Menzies Aviation, which has provided baggage-handlers and ramp workers at Sea-Tac for Alaska Airlines since 2005, when the airline locked out more than 480 better-paid union workers. Menzies, which operates in 31 countries and also provides workers for British Airways at Sea- Tac, has agreed to pay nearly $8.2 million to settle a lawsuit on behalf of 738 past and current workers, with each receiving an average payout of just under $10,000 after attorneys' fees, court documents say. Most of the workers made $12 an hour instead of $15. A spokesman for Menzies declined to comment on the settlement, which still needs court approval. Another airport-services business, Prospect International Airport Services Corp., has agreed to pay nearly $2 million to settle a case covering 291 workers, who stand to receive $6,800 on average, and PrimeFlight Aviation Services has agreed to pay more than $1.8 million to 152 employees, court records show. "This money should have been paid," said James Kiboneka, a 61- year-old former PrimeFlight worker who says he'll use his $8,488 payout for bills and expenses. "It's coming late, but of course this is a victory. If you don't exercise your rights under the laws, what's the good of the laws?" At least two hotels -- Cedarbrook Lodge and Best Western -- have agreed to pay back wages, $650,000 for Cedarbrook and $150,000 for Best Western. EAN Holdings, which operates Enterprise National Car Rental and Alamo Rent A Car, has reached individual settlements that could total about $2.4 million with more than 350 of its current and former employees. But a small group continues to hold out and seek double back pay, arguing that the company "willfully" withheld wages and that it owes interest and other damages even to those who have already settled. Even as they settle, some of the companies continue to insist that SeaTac's ordinance conflicts with federal law and should be invalidated. The Washington Supreme Court rejected that, but EAN has made that argument in federal court, saying the state court's decision isn't a binding interpretation of federal law. "The fact that there are a number of unresolved legal issues shows there's room for compromise," said Jeff James -- jaj@sebrisbusto.com -- a lawyer with the firm Sebris Busto James, which represents companies in seven lawsuits. "Based on their circumstances, these companies can decide whether they want to fight to the end or reach a settlement." MISSOURI: Jamerson May File Amended Complaint in Hep C Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL C. JAMERSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants, No. 4:16-CV-760 JAR (E.D. Mo.), District Judge John A. Ross granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint against the Defendants' medical mistreatment. Plaintiff alleges that he has Hepatitis C and that individual Defendants refused to provide him with treatment. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Corizon, Inc., without prejudice, for failing to allege a policy, custom or official action that caused an actionable injury. To state a claim for medical mistreatment, the Court held that the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs which the defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. In particular, the Court ordered that the amended complaint would state a plausible claim for relief with regard to defendants John Williams, Julie Phipps, and George Lombardi. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/jldja4from Leagle.com. Michael C. Jamerson, Plaintiff, Pro Se. John Williams, Defendant, represented by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode -- jte@eckenrode-law.com -- ECKENRODE-MAUPIN. George Lombardi, Defendant, represented by Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI. MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Dixon May Amend Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Maxine M. Chesney allowed Plaintiff to file an amended class action complaint in no later than September 9, 2016, in the case, EDITH DIXON, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03298-MMC (N.D. Calif.), should Plaintiff wishes to file a Third Amended Complaint following the dismissal of her class action allegations in the second amended complaint. Dixon alleges the Defendant, using an automated telephone dialing system, called Plaintiff's cellular telephone after she had revoked her consent to be called. Plaintiff alleges such calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In the case, the Court finds that the class in the First Amended Complaint was a "fail-safe" class. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, the fail-safe appellation is simply a way of labeling the obvious problems that exist when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the defendant is established. With that regard, Plaintiff submitted her Second Amended Complaint. The Court said that in the newly-proposed class, it is possible that class would have no members at all; if the trier of fact were to conclude that no person was called after such person had revoked his/her prior consent, defendant would prevail on the merits against a nonexistent class. Thus, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike and the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint. The Court noted that upon failure to submit the Third Amended Complaint on the scheduled deadline, the action will proceed on plaintiff's individual claims. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/5Dh9xSfrom Leagle.com. Edith Dixon, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Bacon -- abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Meghan Elisabeth George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Todd Michael Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Joseph Ward -- dennis.ward@rmkb.com -- Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley & Brendan H. Little -- blittle@lippes.com -- Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington County Drops Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Gideon Bradshaw, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that Washington County has called to a halt a class-action lawsuit it filed against an electronic loan registry system and a host of banks the county claimed failed to properly record property transfers during the process of creating mortgage-backed securities and avoided paying millions of dollars in recording fees to county governments. D. Aaron Rihn, one of the attorneys representing the county, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case Aug. 9 in U.S. District Court. The procedural move brings the federal case to a close. "It's our intent to get the matter back in state court, where we feel it belongs," Mr. Rihn said. The lawsuit was filed in Washington County Court March 31 against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, identified in court documents as a private, members-only mortgage loan registry based in Reston, Va.; MERSCORP Holdings Inc., its owner; and various other entities involved in the mortgage-backed securities industry. The county alleged the defendants caused counties to miss out on more than $100 million in estimated recording fees statewide, created "gaps in the record of ownership" and raised "doubts about the accurate satisfaction of mortgages." By the time Washington County dropped the case, defendants had moved it to U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh and filed a number of motions asking for a ruling to dismiss it, citing an opinion issued by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2015. A lower court had ruled in favor of Montgomery County in a case it brought against MERS and affiliated institutions, but federal appellate judges reversed the earlier decision. In one brief, some of the defendants in Washington County's lawsuit contended the previous ruling shows that state law "does not impose a duty to record. It merely provides the holder of a mortgage with the option of recording that mortgage to preserve his or her rights against subsequent bona fide purchasers." Along with MERS and MERSCORP, Washington County named Bank of America of Charlotte, N.C.; Bank of New York Mellon of New York City; Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. of Los Angeles; Citibank of Sioux Falls, S.D.; CitiMortgage of O'Fallon, Mo.; Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. of Los Angeles; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas of New York City; HSBC Bank U.S.A., North America, of McLean, Va.; HSBC Finance Corp., formerly known as Household International Inc. of Mettawa, Ill.; JPMorgan Chase Bank of North America, Columbus, Ohio; Wells Fargo Bank of North America, Sioux Falls, S.D.; and West Penn Financial Service Center Inc. of Pittsburgh, all identified in court papers as members of the electronic registry, as defendants. "The central purpose and intent behind the MERS concept was to enjoy all of the benefits of the land title recording system, while avoiding the administrative burden and expense of publicly recording mortgage assignments in each county and paying the associated recording fees," the lawsuit stated. Lenders' use of the registry began in the mid-1990s as securitization, which requires at least three mortgage assignments and often involves more, came into vogue. During securitization, "an investment bank, for example, purchases several mortgages and pools them into a trust or other vehicle, then issues marketable securities backed by the mortgage loans in the trust," according to the lawsuit. Mortgage loans in Pennsylvania involve a promissory note -- which contains the borrower's promise to repay the loan -- and the mortgage, which acts, "in part, as a lien on the real estate providing the lender security for repayment of the note," according to the lawsuit. Members of MERS can agree with borrowers in residential mortgages to list the registry as the mortgagee of record. "The original mortgage is then recorded in MERS' name in county land records while the promissory note is bought and sold any number of times among MERS members without the preparation or timely recording of corresponding mortgage assignments in the appropriate county recorder of deeds office," the lawsuit stated. When lenders do record mortgage assignments in transfers of property notes, "they usually do so only well after the 90-day deadline imposed" by state law to file a document known as a "satisfaction" or to facilitate foreclosure proceedings because of default. Before the county dropped the lawsuit, some defendants pointed out in a motion that 22 courts across the country had adopted positions agreeing with the Third Circuit's. Among the county's demands were injunctive relief and lost recording fees. NEST LABS: Averts Class Action Over Wi-Fi-Enabled Thermostats ------------------------------------------------------------- R. Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, provides a round-up that takes a look at the potential impact on class-action litigation of some recently proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and continues our exploration of what type of injury it takes to sustain a data-breach class action. Proposed Guidance for Determining Whether Class Action Settlements are "Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate": The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States focused on class actions in its latest round of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Most notably, the Committee proposed a list of factors for courts to consider when determining whether to approve a class settlement. Rule 23(e)(2)'s "fair, reasonable, and adequate" standard would still govern, but the revised rules would direct courts to consider four targeted questions: whether class counsel and the class representative adequately represented the class, whether the settlement was negotiated at arm's length, whether the relief afforded to the class is adequate, and whether class members are treated equitably relative to each other. In a nod to modern methods of communication, the Committee also proposed an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2) to permit email notification of opt-out rights to class members for classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3). For Data-Breach Class Actions, the Spoils of the Heist Matter: A case could be made that 2016 is the year of the data-breach class action--we've certainly devoted substantial attention to the subject here. The August ruling in Attias v. Carefirst, Inc. adds another weapon to defense practitioners' arsenal on the issue of whether a data breach alone is a sufficient injury to support a claim. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendant health insurer's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to allege any concrete harm caused by a June 2014 data breach compromising the personal information of over a million policyholders. Notably, the complaint did not allege the data stolen in the breach included social security, credit card, or financial account numbers. The court thus held the plaintiffs had failed to identify a "substantial risk" that the stolen data would be misused in a harmful manner, and deemed their argument that they faced an increased risk of future identity theft "too speculative" to support federal standing. Ninth Circuit to Take a Close Look at Denial of Certification based on Inadequacy of Class Counsel: Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement is dual-pronged--while most adequacy-based attacks on certification focus on the class representatives themselves, Rule 23(a)(4) also demands adequate representation by class counsel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted permission for a Rule 23(f) appeal of the district court's order denying class certification on this basis. The opinion permitting the appeal is expectedly brief, but includes a notable instruction to the parties: "In addition to all the other issues the parties may wish to raise in this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of whether the district court should have considered less drastic alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns with the vigor of class counsel's representation." The appellate briefing and the Ninth Circuit's ultimate decision will likely provide a temperature check on how high (or, rather, low) the bar is set for denying certification based on inadequate representation of counsel. Some Hurdles to Pursuing False Advertising Claims on a Class-wide Basis: Speaking of temperature checks, Nest Labs Inc. recently defeated a bid for class certification for claims arising out of representations of increased energy savings made in connection with the sale of Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held the plaintiff could not show commonality because many putative class members were subject to an arbitration clause and class action waiver, and many others purchased thermostats in packaging that did not contain the purported misrepresentations. The court also held the named plaintiff was neither a typical nor adequate class representative because he disabled many of the thermostat's energy-saving features, and prior to doing so, often reaped energy savings consistent with the defendant's representations. The court also denied certification on the grounds that common issues did not predominate under Rule 23(b), noting that the plaintiff sought to certify a nationwide class, and the consumer protection statues of the 50 states varied significantly. NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement reached in a merger class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "Following the announcement on October 29, 2015 of the execution of the Company's merger agreement with Astoria Financial, six putative class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, challenging the proposed merger between Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria") and New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB"). These actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6) Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015 )." "On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York Actions under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015 (the "New York Action"), and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2016. In addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January 22, 2016) (the "Delaware Action"). "Each of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction is a putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria Financial and names as defendants Astoria Financial, its directors, and the Company. The complaint in the New York Action and the Delaware Action are substantially identical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the merger agreement, including by: agreeing to an allegedly unfair price for Astoria; approving the transaction notwithstanding alleged conflicts of interest; agreeing to deal protection devices that plaintiffs allege are unreasonable; and by failing to disclose certain facts about the process that led to the merger and financial analyses performed by Astoria's financial advisors. The complaints also allege that NYCB aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. The actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed merger. "On April 6, 2016, the parties to the New York Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting out the terms of an agreement in principle to settle all claims alleged on behalf of the putative class relating to the merger, which were disclosed on April 8, 2016. The MOU provides, among other things, that Astoria will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive documentation, the completion of the merger, and the approval by the court of the proposed settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. "The Company believes that the factual allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and, having reached agreement in principal on the resolution of the In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation matter, would intend to defend vigorously against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in such matter in the event that the settlement is not concluded as currently intended and also intends to defend vigorously against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action." NORTHERN OIL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. ("Northern Oil" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06543, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Northern Oil securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Northern Oil securities during the Class Period, you have until October 17, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Northern Oil is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The Company primarily holds interests in the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and Montana. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Northern Oil's compliance policies with respect to SEC regulations and the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics were inadequate to detect and/or prevent misconduct by the Company's officers; (ii) consequently, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Michael Reger ("Reger"), was able to engage in illegal stock manipulation during his tenure at Northern Oil; (iii) Reger was consequently unfit to serve as Northern Oil's CEO; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Northern Oil's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 16, 2016, Northern Oil fired Reger as CEO after Reger told the Company that he had received a Wells Notice[1] from the SEC and faced federal sanctions in connection with the SEC's investigation of 2012 trading patterns in the securities of Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc, a company in which Reger initially invested in 2008. Northern Oil stated that Reger had been removed from the Company's board, effective immediately, and that the Company does not believe that Reger will be entitled to any severance payment. On this news, Northern Oil stock fell $0.25, or 6.28%, to close at $3.73 on August 16, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. [1] A Wells notice is a letter from the SEC advising a person or a firm that the SEC intends to bring an enforcement action against them. OCEAN STATE: Faces "Hanscome" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Hanscome, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc., Case No. HHD- CV-16-6070810-S (Conn. Super. Ct., August 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. operates a discount chain specializing in manufacturers' closeout and overstock merchandise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Lawsuit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss to dismiss the second amended complaint in the lawsuit by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority remains pending. The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants was expanded to include the Company's then independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended, alleges among other things that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22, 2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule. The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. Given the litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. SEPTA's Second Amended Complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"). The Company has been cooperating fully with the investigation but has not yet reached any definitive agreement with the Commission regarding a resolution. Accordingly, there can be no assurances that the outcome of the investigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. The Company has established a reserve of $1,000,000 for outstanding legal matters. PACIFIC GAS: Amended Protective Order Adopted in "Greer" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean adopted the parties' stipulation of a protective order, with amendments, for the purpose of preventing unnecessary disclosure or inappropriate use of confidential, private, proprietary and/or trade secret business information contained in certain documents, deposition testimony or discovery responses in the case, styled and numbered, BECKY GREER; TIMOTHY C. BUDNIK; ROSARIO SAENZ; and IAN CARTY, Individually and as "Class Representatives," Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-01066-EPG (E.D. Calif.). The protections conferred by the Protective Order cover not only all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter that has been designated as "Confidential" and subject to this Protective Order (i.e., "Protected Material"), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Documents produced by a person, entity, party, or counsel may stamp or otherwise label that document with the words "Confidential -- Subject to Protective Order" prior to production, which shall render the document and the information contained in it subject to the Protective Order. Magistrate Judge Grosjean amended the judicial intervention outlined in the parties' Protective Order by pointing out that the Court will determine on a case-by-case basis whether judicial intervention is warranted. In order to file a motion challenging the "Confidential" designation, counsel must receive permission from the Court following an informal telephone conference. A party wishing to schedule such a conference should contact chambers at (559) 499- 5962 to receive available dates. Moreover, the Court declines to adopt a provision of the Parties' Protective Order identifying the effectivity of the obligations of confidentiality, to the extent that it is inconsistent with Local Rule 141.1(f). A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/M0e9pQfrom Leagle.com. Becky Greer, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dylan J. Crosby -- dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael S. Helsley -- mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick D. Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Aurelio J. Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Joshua D. Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Matthew R. Dardenne -- mdardenne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. PANERA BREAD: Must Pay $5,578 Bill of Costs in "Boswell" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted the Plaintiffs' motion for bill of costs at US$5,578.64, being the prevailing party in the case entitled, MARK BOSWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14-CV-01833-AGF (E.D. Mo.). The Court finds that, although Plaintiffs did not succeed on all of their claims, Plaintiffs' substantial success on their breach of contract claim makes them the prevailing parties in this case against Defendant Panera, LLC. Thus, the Court denied the Defendants' bill of costs. The Court further ordered the Clerk of Court to tax these costs against Defendant: Fees of the Clerk: $700.00 and Fees for transcripts: $4,878.64, Total: US$5,578.64. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/KsxAD7from Leagle.com. Mark Boswell, Plaintiff, represented by Bert S. Braud, THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C., pro hac vice, Dennis E. Egan, THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C., pro hac vice & Timothy Coffield, COFFIELD PLC, pro hac vice. Panera LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick F. Hulla -- patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Jennifer Kate Oldvader -- jennifer.oldvader@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & Justin Matthew Dean -- justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS. PHILIP MORRIS: Tobacco Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Texarkana Gazette reports that if you live on the Arkansas side and smoked Marlboro Light or Ultra-Light cigarettes between 1971 and 2003, you may have some cash coming your way. A federal judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement in a lawsuit charging tobacco company Philip Morris USA with misleading consumers by advertising the cigarettes as less harmful than others. The case has been going on for more than a dozen years and involved at least seven law firms. There have been similar suits in other states, but according to a story in the Aug. 17 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, this is the first lawsuit where the company agreed to a settlement. Philip Morris USA will pay $45 million to settle all claims, but admits no wrongdoing. The terms call for Arkansas consumers to be reimbursed 10 cents for every pack purchased between 1971 and 1998. Those who continued to smoke the brands between 1998 and 2003 could get 25 cents per pack purchased. Those who hope to get a check must apply online and give a sworn statement detailing the average number of cigarettes they smoked per day and listing at least three retailers where they bought the smokes. POWER SOLUTIONS: October 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. ("PSI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PSIX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 16-cv-08253, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities between May 8, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased PSI securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. PSI designs, manufactures, distributes, and supports power systems and custom engineered integrated electrical power generation systems for industrial original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial equipment and on-road medium trucks and buses. The Company sells its products and services primarily in North America, as well as in the Pacific Rim and Europe. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain transactions; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, PSI's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 15, 2016, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), announcing that the Company needed additional time to file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC. On this news, PSI's share price fell $1.52 per share, or 9.85%, to close at $13.91 on August 16, 2016. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. QUANTUM LEARNING: Court Seals Deporter's Declaration ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, TREVOR JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUANTUM LEARNING NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the parties' joint motion to seal designated portions of Roberta DePorter's declaration, which is offered in support of Plaintiffs' amended motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case. The Court held that the parties' motion is narrowly tailored and seeks to seal only the sensitive financial information of non- parties DePorter and DePorter's spouse, as well as sensitive financial information of Defendant that, if made public, could harm Defendant's business interests. Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/FGjRZ3from Leagle.com. Trevor Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Logan McMillan Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law. Quantum Learning Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas S. Ingrassia -- tingrassia@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC, Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones -- jleyton@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC & Shannon Riyana Finley -- SFinley@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC. RAYONIER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a consolidated securities class action lawsuit is now in the discovery phase. Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled respectively: * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv- 08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474. On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015. On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20, 2016. The case is now in the discovery phase. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred nor can the range of any such loss be estimated. RED GRANITE: Amanah Seeks Yang's Support for 1MBD Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Koh Jun Lin, writing for malaysiakini, reports that Parti Amanah Negara (Amanah) will seek the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's support for the class action suit in the United States initiated by lawyer Mattias Chang and Salor assemblyperson Husam Musa. The party's international bureau chief Raja Kamarul Bahrin Raja Ahmad Shah said Amanah is also mulling taking similar legal action abroad in jurisdictions involved in the 1MDB scandal, including in the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. In a previous report, malaysiakini disclosed that the class action was brought on behalf of the Malaysian citizenry and was filed on Aug. 11 with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Messrs. Chang and Husam named Red Granite Pictures, the film production and distribution company's co-founders Christopher Joey McFarland and Riza. According to the court filing, Messrs. Chang and Husam claimed the defendants knowingly used funds stolen from 1MDB for their personal benefit, including throwing parties for Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio to curry favor with him. Also named as defendants were Malaysian billionaire Low and his tax attorney Debra Whelan Johnson, as well as her firm Metropolis IX Capital Advisors LLC. Goldman Sachs Group and its former banker Timothy Leissner were also named. RJ REYNOLDS: Lawyer Faces Sanctions in Florida Tobacco Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that sanctions against attorneys in tobacco cases are rare, Florida plaintiffs lawyers say -- but in the case of a King & Spalding partner whose improper statements led to a mistrial, it was the judge himself who put the penalty on the table. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas decided on his own to consider sanctions against King & Spalding Atlanta attorney W Randall Bassett for introducing information about a similar case's verdict -- information the judge said was also false -- while representing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The judge gave defense counsel 10 days, or until Aug. 31, to show why billion-dollar Am Law 100 firm King & Spalding should not have to pay as sanctions the plaintiffs' costs associated with trying the case a second time. But plaintiffs attorneys said they almost never move for sanctions when litigating against tobacco companies -- not because they don't see bad behavior, but because it doesn't seem worthwhile as they rush to win damages for clients who are often close to death. "It's simply a diversion that plays right into the tobacco companies' hands, because they have so much more manpower," said Philip Gerson of Gerson & Schwartz in Miami, who has represented many smokers over the years. Thousands of tobacco cases were filed across the state after the Florida Supreme Court disbanded the statewide Engle class action in 2006. Engle-progeny plaintiffs must show their disease manifested itself before Nov. 21, 1996, which means many qualifying smokers have died waiting for their cases to go to trial. While plaintiffs attorneys hesitate to get caught up in side issues because of limited time and money, tobacco companies have an incentive to file dozens of motions, accuse plaintiffs counsel of wrongdoing during discovery and aim for a mistrial, according to smokers' lawyers. The attorneys who represent plaintiff Patsy Davis in the case before Judge Thomas argue Mr. Bassett's behavior is part of a larger pattern of tobacco defense attorneys using a scorched-earth strategy to derail cases. The jury reached a defense verdict in the Davis case. "They prevail in this litigation not by winning on the merits, but by forcing plaintiffs and their lawyers to spend so much time and money trying the cases that they give up," Ms. Davis' lawyers wrote in the motion for mistrial, which was granted Aug. 17. A sanctions hearing was not yet on the docket as of Aug. 29. Ms. Davis' lawyers, Philip Freidin of Freidin Brown in Miami and Alex Alvarez of the Law Office of Alexander Alvarez in Miami, declined to comment on the case, and Mr. Bassett did not respond to requests for comment. The motion references internal memos from Philip Morris that show the company counts its victories in terms of wins and mistrials. "A mistrial is as good as a win for them, because the following year, that case will be retried" while another is kicked down the road, said John Uustal of Kelley/Uustal in Fort Lauderdale, who said he has had a few clients die waiting for trial. Mr. Uustal said he has been "ambushed" by tobacco defense attorneys in the past, but he doesn't believe monetary sanctions are ever large enough to deter bad behavior from such deep- pocketed defendants. In one case, he won a $300 million verdict against Philip Morris - - later overturned -- and when asked by the judge what kind of effect the payment would have on operations, the company said "none." "What's the point in moving for sanctions?" Mr. Uustal asked. "They can spend almost a billion dollars a year in legal fees." Gary Paige, a Davie attorney with Gordon & Doner who has won several eight-figure tobacco verdicts in recent years, said he has never moved for sanctions in an Engle case. When asked if he's ever considered doing so, he said: "I have considered many things, but at the end of the day I think we all just want an opportunity for a jury trial where our clients can obtain justice." Mr. Gerson agreed, saying he tried a tobacco case in July where sanctions could be warranted against one of the same lawyers in the Davis case. That lawyer, Frank Bayuk from King & Spalding in Atlanta, was criticized in Mr. Davis' motion for mistrial, with plaintiffs counsel claiming he made improperly argumentative comments during opening statements. The judge did not specifically address Mr. Bayuk's remarks, but noted that along with Mr. Bassett's conduct, the "cumulative effect denied plaintiff the right to a fair trial." In the case Mr. Gerson worked on, Mr. Bayuk earned a rebuke from Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Bronwyn Miller after misleading her about how long a defense witness had been retained in a case filed by smoker Barbara Morales. Miller struck the witness. Mr. Bayuk did not respond to a request for comment on the decisions. "It's the perfect case to ask for sanctions," Mr. Gerson said of the Morales matter. "The judge said in her order, basically, 'You lied to me.'" Perfect case or not, Mr. Gerson does not think he will move for sanctions. "Fighting this sanctions battle would maybe get an order slamming him or an award of fees or costs," Mr. Gerson said. "That's why in all the routine cases, every discovery violation that we get, we rarely file a motion for sanctions. Because what are we going to do? We want the data, we want the truth, we want the facts. Not some penalty." ROCKET FUEL: Class Certification Sought in Rocket Fuel Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In re ROCKET FUEL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:14-cv- 03998-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all those persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Rocket Fuel during the period from November 6, 2013 to August 5, 2014, inclusive." The Lead Plaintiffs further ask the Court: 1. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Browder Capital, LLC, and Patrick Browder as Class Representatives;, and 2. appointing Kaplan Fox and Kahn Swick as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oVjQARWV The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 4700 Facsimile: (415) 772 4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com - and - Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Alexander Burns, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP 912 Cole Street, No. 251 San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (504) 455 1400 Facsimile: 504-455-1498 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com S2VERIFY: Class Notice Plan in "Hawkins" Case Approved ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, REGMON L. HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S2VERIFY, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03502 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup granted the parties' Joint Proposal for Class Notification along with the proposed Notice of Class Certification and Request for Exclusion. The Court finds that the proposal complies with due process and the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B) to provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court appointed American Legal Claims Services, LLC as the class administrator for the purpose of administering direct mailing to class members and assisting with processing opt-outs to the class. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/YUlgzNfrom Leagle.com. Regmon L. Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Devin Heng Fok -- devin@devinfoklaw.com -- DHF Law P.C., Benjamin Charles Wickert, Caddell and Chapman & Michael A. Caddell -- mac@cadellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman. S2Verify, Defendant, represented by Brian H. Gunn -- bhgunn@wolfewyman.com -- Wolfe & Wyman LLP & Andrew An Bao -- aabao@wolfewyman.com -- Wolfe & Wyman LLP. SCRAP INC: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Car Care Suit Continued ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Chicago Car Care Inc., the Plaintiff, v. S.C.R.A.P. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08088 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge James B. Zagel granted Plaintiff's motion to certify Class to continue. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 24, 2016, the hearing set for August 25, 2016 is stricken and no appearance is necessary. Another status hearing is set for September 15, 2016 at 9:15 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGq3w0u8 SEPTRAN INC: Barker Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA BARKER and PENELOPE GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown v. SEPTRAN, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv- 09270 (N.D. Ill.), filed with the Court their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and for class certification of state law IWPCA Claims. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as: "All persons formerly employed by Defendant Septran, Inc. in Illinois who forfeited accrued vacation time between 2014 and 2015 upon their separation of employment." The Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, which will resolve the claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), of approximately 31 people against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class of employees damaged by the Defendant's alleged improper vacation pay policy. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement provides that the total amount of the settlement to Class Members is $105,000. Each member of the IWPCA Class will receive a 100% recovery including statutory interest. The remaining amount is divided up among the Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their proposed notice program, to set a date for the final approval hearing, and to set a date for submission of the final approval papers. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ffA1h9U2 The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Maloney" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Maloney moves the Court to certify the classes described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled DEBBIE MALONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SQUARETWO FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a FRESH VIEW SOLUTIONS, CACH, LLC, and AVANT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01175-NJ (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) 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 contends, 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 asserts 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 points out. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court 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=VyU6eUSW 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 ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces "Ross" Class Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc., d/b/a St. Jude Cardiac Rhythm Management Division The case is captioned Clinton W. Ross Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc., d/b/a St. Jude Cardiac Rhythm Management Division, Case No. 2:16-cv-06465 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2016). The Defendants operate a medical device company headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE AND TORRIJOS LLP 6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com ST. JUDE MEDICAL: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FORSTA AP-FONDEN AND DANSKE INVEST MANAGEMENT A/S, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., DANIEL J. STARKS, JOHN C. HEINMILLER, ERIC S. FAIN, MICHAEL T. ROUSSEAU, and DONALD J. ZURBAY, Defendants Civil No. 12-3070 (JNE/HB) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 5, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2012, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 7, 2016 (the "Stipulation") and the Settlement Notice described below. Please read this notice carefully. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by a class action lawsuit pending in this Court, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement described below. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, that the parties in the above-captioned action (the "Action") have reached a proposed settlement for $39,250,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on November 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen at the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, United States District Court, 300 South Fourth Street, 202 U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415, Courtroom 12W, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases set forth in the Stipulation (and Settlement Notice described below) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (v) Class Representatives' request for reimbursement of costs and expenses in connection with their representation of the Class should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. A detailed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement of Class Action; (II) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Settlement Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form") are currently being mailed to Class Members explaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlement and the process for submitting a Claim Form. If you have not yet received the detailed Settlement Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.stjudesecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173010 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 905-8130 info@StJudeSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 www.ktmc.com Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 www.motleyrice.com If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than December 8, 2016. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated March 29, 2016 ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded from the Class, no further action is required. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt back into the Class and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt back into the Class such that it is received no later than October 20, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt back into the Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and/or Class Representatives' request for reimbursement of costs and expenses. Any objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 20, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, St. Jude, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator as listed above. DATED: AUGUST 22, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court District of Minnesota 1 At all relevant times, St. Jude Medical, Inc. common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "STJ." STATE FARM: "Dennington" Suit May Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JEFF DENNINGTON; JAMES STUART; and CAREDA HOOD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-04001-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order: 1. denying Defendants' motion for hearing; 2. dismissing State Farm General as a Defendant because no named Plaintiff has standing to sue it as separate Defendant; 3. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives and appointment of class Counsel; The Plaintiffs James Stuart and Careda Hood are named as representatives of the class. The Court additionally approves the following law firms as class counsel: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; Keil & Goodson, P.A.; Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC: Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Taylor Law Partners, LLP: Stephen Engstrom Law Office; Crowley Norman LLP: and James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9b21OYNH SUNPOWER CORP: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPower Corporation ("SunPower" or the "Company") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of SunPower between February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Complaint, Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) a substantial number of SunPower's customers were adopting a longer- term timeline for project completion; (2) SunPower's near-term economic returns were deteriorating; (3) market disruption in the YieldCo environment was impacting SunPower's assumptions related to monetizing deferred profits; (4) demand for SunPower's products was significantly declining; (5) in response, SunPower would implement a manufacturing realignment that would result in significant restructuring charges; (6) SunPower's fiscal year 2016 guidance was overstated; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about SunPower's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 17, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. SUNTRUST BANK: Stock-Drop Suit Obtained Class Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------- John Manganaro, writing for planadviser, reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, has handed down another complicated ruling in an impressively long-lived employer stock drop lawsuit filed by employees of SunTrust Bank under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case has an extensive procedural history and is one among a handful of lawsuits winning reconsideration after the Supreme Court's landmark 2014 decision in Fifth-Third Bancorp vs. Dudenhoeffer. In short, this latest ruling seems to be a partial victory and partial defeat for SunTrust Bank, which won summary judgment and dismissal on certain claims while seeing other plaintiffs' claims certified as a class action, slated for a full trial. SunTrust will also undoubtedly be pleased to see the district court has denied a plantiffs' motion to remove from consideration a key report that supports SunTrust decisionmaking related to its offering of employer stock. The current complaint being considered was brought "pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)." Plaintiffs are participants in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, and they brought the latest amended action on behalf of themselves, the plan, and a class of similarly situated plan participants. The plan is a defined contribution (DC) retirement plan sponsored by SunTrust, "with the primary purpose of allowing participants to save for retirement." Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Fifth-Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (and following a previous set of dismissals and appeals from the United States District Court for The Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, as well as the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) plaintiffs pleaded alternative actions that plan fiduciaries could have taken consistent with securities laws to avoid large losses to participant accounts when SunTrust stock lost value. Defendants, in response, filed an expert report prepared by Lucy P. Allen (referred to as the Allen Report) which analyzed the validity of the proposed alternatives raised according to Dudenhoeffer . By way of background, the Supreme Court in Dudenhoeffer held that "to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence on the basis of inside information, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an alternative action that the defendant could have taken that would have been consistent with the securities laws and that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it." SURFSTITCH: More Than 100 Investors to Join Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jacinda Tutty, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a potential class action into the collapse of SurfStitch shares is gaining momentum. The Gold Coast-based online retailer's shares were trading above $1.70 earlier this year and have since slumped as low as 18cents after the shock resignation of chief executive Justin Cameron in May and three profit downgrades. Law firm Gadens said it has been approached by "more than 100" investors "representing millions of shares" to be involved in a potential $500 million class action. The firm has spent the month of July consulting litigation funders and pouring over the company's business and financial affairs to determine whether it "kept the market informed" and had "taken reasonable care and diligence". SurfStitch received its latest ASX share price query in mid June after suspicious trading activity ahead of its third profit downgrade. Increased share trading was detected and the retailer's share price nosedived from 48cents on May 31 to 41cents on June 7 when SurfStitch placed the company in a trading halt while it reviewed its accounts. Gadens confirmed it approached SurfStitch for the first time on August 17 questioning whether its accounts give a fair indication of its financial position. The online surfwear and action sport retailer was also asked whether it will account for the potential shareholder class action proceeding and whether it expects to return to profitability this financial year. SurfStitch was due to deliver its full year results on August 30. The company's new CEO Mike Sonand flagged an $18 million loss for SurfStitch when he took the reins in June while Mr. Cameron's threat of a private equity takeover bid has yet to materialize. SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal in Suit Over EDS & NDI Sales Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2016, that an appeal in the class action lawsuit related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI") remains pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company said, "On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI")." "On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. "In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued. "On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid by the Company into escrow. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the settlement." TAMKO BUILDING: Court Grants Page Extension in "Snyder" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JEFFREY SNYDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN (E.D. Calif.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the Defendant's request to file a 60-page brief in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to file a separate 20-page brief in support of its motion to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendant asserted that the page extension is necessary to adequately address the numerous causes of action alleged by each of the four Plaintiffs, whose claims are governed by the laws of four different states. The Court, however, cautions Defendant to be as concise as possible in addressing Plaintiffs' causes of action. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/Fu2b7rfrom Leagle.com. Jeffrey Snyder, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Jacob M. Polakoff -- jpolakoff@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice, Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice, Richard Norman Sieving -- rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com -- The Sieving Law Firm A.P.C., Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice & Luke Gabriel Pears-Dickson -- lpearsdickson@sievinglawfirm.com -- Sieving Law Firm, APC. Tamko Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Stephen Painter -- cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com -- Ericksen Arbuthnot, Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice, John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP & Richard T. Bernardo -- richard.bernardo@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice. TEREX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suits in Conn. & Del. ---------------------------------------------------------- Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuits in Connecticut and Delaware courts. The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits as follows: * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. * On August 21, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Bernard Stern, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court, and on August 26, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Joseph Weinstock, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court. The complaints name as defendants Terex Corporation, Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc., Konecranes Acquisition Company LLC and the members of the Board of Directors of Terex. On March 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Stern action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his action, which was approved by the Court. On May 20, 2016, the plaintiff in the Weinstock action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his action, which was approved by the Court. The first two lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00656-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., August 26, 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. Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc. provides research services to consumer and business-to-business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC Suite 300, 3900 E. Mexico Avenue Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC 28th Floor, 201 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-9827 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com TIVO INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------- Legal News Line reports that an Ohio woman is suing TiVo and and its corporate directors, alleging negligent misrepresentations and omissions. Rebecca Graham filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 3 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division against TiVo Inc. and corporate directors Peter Aquino, Jeffrey T. Hinson, Daniel Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Winifred Markus Webb, alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, Ms. Graham was deprived of her right to cast a fully informed vote on the proposed merger between TiVo and Rovi Corporation and would suffer irreparable financial injury were the proposed transaction consummated. The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to provide stockholders with material information necessary for an informed vote on the proposed transaction and issued the misleading proxy with the intention of soliciting stockholder support. Ms. Graham seeks a trial by jury, judgment against the defendant, a ruling declaring this case as a class action, permanently enjoining defendants from closing the proposed transaction, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and all other relief the court deems proper. She is represented by attorneys Donald E. Enright and Elizabeth K. Tripodi of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in Washington, D.C., and by Adam C. McCall of the same firm in Los Angeles. U.S. District Court for the Northern District San Jose Division of California Case number 5:16-cv-04367 TRANSENTERIX INC: Bid to Dismiss "Bankley" Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- TransEnterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss the Bankley class action remains pending. On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the "Bankley Action"), against TransEnterix, Inc. (the "Company") and two of its executive officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016. The complaint in the Bankley Action alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements related to the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws. The complaint in the Bankley Action seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint, Thomas Ravey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:16-cv-599) (the "Ravey Action"). The Ravey Action asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeks substantially similar relief as the Bankley Action. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily dismissed the Ravey Action. On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bankley Action for failure to state a claim under the securities laws. TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by addressing the clinical challenges associated with current laparoscopic and robotic options. TRUSTMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has denied the motion by Trust National Bank and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss a second amended complaint. Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues. In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i) aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii) aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy. On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the action. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. Trustmark is evaluating this order and its options with respect to this litigation. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Intervene in "O'Connor" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Court declined to exercise its discretion to permit plaintiffs in other related on-going cases against Defendants to intervene. District Judge Edward M. Chen concludes that an intervention is not warranted since the settlement of the O'Connor suit will not affect the proposed interveners' cases following the denial of its preliminary approval motion. The Court also denied Abdo Ghazi's motion to disqualify class counsel. Ghazi's motion is based on an alleged conflict of interest between the O'Connor certified class, the Yucesoy putative class, and the individual plaintiffs in Colopy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The Court treated Ghazi's argument as moot as the Court has already denied a motion for preliminary settlement approval. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/nU2j82from Leagle.com. Douglas O'Connor, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne George Ross LLP, Ben Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Benjamin J. Meiselas, Geragos and Geragos, APC, Brian Stephen Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Brian C. Tackenberg -- btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise, Jr. -- gbaise@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Matthew David Carlson -- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shant Arthur Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com - - Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrousun, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Stoker -- bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, John C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell -- kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@valdezlawgroup.com -- Valdez Law Group LLP & Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC. Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC. Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner -- chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices, APC. John Doe, Movant, Pro Se. Todd Johnston, Movant, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm. Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff & Douglas Caiafa, Attorney at Law. City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E. Meyer, City of Cleveland. Rosario Richardson, Interested Party, represented by Carey A. James -- caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. Leticia Alcala, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. Marc Borgen, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Attorneys for Objectors, Objector, represented by Andre Emilio Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com -- Knapp Petersen & Clarke. Uladzimir Tabola, et al., Objectors, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky -- alexei@sfbizlaw.com -- Klein Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. Jorge Zunigas, et al., Objectors, represented by Mark Alan Morrison -- markmorrison@paulhastings.com -- Morrison and Associates. Adham Shaheen, et al., Objectors, represented by Veena Bharat Dubal -- dubalv@uchastings.edu -- University of California, Hastings College of the Law. UGI CORPORATION: Indirect Purchaser Claims Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the only claims remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is still pending. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws. UGI CORPORATION: New Group of Indirect Buyers Files Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that several new indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed on July 21, 2016, an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. This lawsuit repeats the allegations and claims from the existing indirect purchaser complaints, includes several of the same plaintiffs and was filed by the same group of lawyers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pacanowski" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Pacanowski, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Case No. 3:16- cv-01778-RPC (M.D. Penn., August 25, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. United Recovery Systems, LP provides accounts receivable management services to issuers in credit card, retail, commercial, and deficiency loan industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely Street Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 Facsimile: (570) 504-2769 E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com The Defendant is represented by: Erin Stottlemyer Gold, Esq. George J. Lavin III, Esq. GEORGE J. LAVIN ILL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 222 S. Manoa Road, First Floor Havertown, PA 19083 Telephone: (610) 449-1565 E-mail: egold@lavin3law.com glavin@lavin3law.com UNITED STATES: HUD Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practice ------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPA reports that since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Note Sale Program began in 2010, HUD has sold more than 113,000 mortgages nationwide to private companies. Now, the department is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that HUD has "sold some 1,000 delinquent Federal Housing Agency mortgages in New York City while ignoring basic due process protections," resulting in a discriminatory impact on African-American homeowners in the state. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Opal Millman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. United Technologies Corporation, Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors, Andrews Dairy Store, Inc., and L.D. Williams, Inc., Case No. 35D01-1607-PL- 000390, was removed from the Huntington Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Fort Wayne). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00312 to the proceeding. United Technologies Corporation is an aircraft manufacturer based in Hartford, Connecticut. Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors manufactures tubular, welded, and stamped assemblies for automotive and aircraft industries. Andrews Dairy Store, Inc. operates a dairy product store located at 155 North Main Street, Andrews, IN 46702. L.D. Williams, Inc. operates a business at 155 North Main Street, Andrews, IN 46702. Opal Millman is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Kelly J. Hartzler, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 700 1st Source Bank Center 100 N Michigan St South Bend, IN 46601-1632 Telephone: (574) 233-1171 Facsimile: (574) 237-1125 E-mail: kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com UPS: Triangle Workers Mull Class Action Over Working Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Grubb, writing for The News & Observer, reports that UPS employees, some with more than 20 years on the job, planned to rally on Aug. 22 against what they say is a culture of discrimination, harassment and unfair, unsafe working conditions across the Triangle and the state. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Branch of the NAACP would join the workers, their families and friends from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Eubanks Park and Ride lot, next to UPS's offices on Eubanks Road. They want fair and better working conditions for UPS workers statewide, the Rev. Robert Campbell said. UPS workers from Durham and Morrisville planned to join them, said Rev. Campbell, president of the local NAACP branch. All are doing more work in fewer hours, while UPS cuts drivers to save costs, more than a dozen workers said. Their complaints echo what UPS workers have reported across the nation, he said. The most recent case was in Kentucky, where eight black workers won $5.3 million in damages for claims that UPS had created a hostile workplace, discriminated against one employee and retaliated against another. Triangle workers are planning a class-action suit against UPS, Rev. Campbell said. They have evidence to back up their claims, he said, pointing to piles of folders and paperwork. "When you put stress on workers, it affects their lifestyle, it affects their social gatherings, it puts undue stress upon you, and you sometimes act different with your family and your friends," he said. "How do we go about restoring people back to their normal (life)? Well, you really can't, but you can make life a little easier by making sure that the workplace that you leave ends up being much better but also get a resolution as you move forward." Triangle UPS workers interviewed said black and Hispanic workers are common targets of abusive language and over-supervision. One longtime worker said mutiple supervisors would follow him as he made his rounds, looking for violations. Another worker produced certified letters sent over a two-year period informing the worker of several discharges. More than one worker mentioned being fired multiple times -- some for bringing up problems -- and being re-hired after being "punished." Many refused to give their names and said they are concerned about retaliation after the rally. Dianne Edwards, a 28-year employee, said she's filed dozens of complaints and been discharged 33 times. Her July 28 complaint states senior employees who talk to her are facing retaliation "to break their spirits." The latest grievance was filed after she refused to sign a contract prohibiting workers from having cell phones, bluetooth devices or ordering food on the clock, she said. She writes in the grievance, filed Aug. 12, that she was reading a phone text to a white co-worker when she noticed a supervisor watching her. She told the supervisor it was the other woman's phone, and he walked away, she said. "It is clear to me that the white employees can and do use their bluetooths and cell phones at work and the African Americans (Dianne Edwards) can not," she wrote in the complaint. While many UPS workers belong to Teamsters Local 391, they said union representation hasn't been much help. Local 391 Vice President Richard Armstrong and President Mike McGaha did not respond to requests for comment. Rev. Campbell met a few hours on Aug. 19 with UPS area human resource manager Ronald Palmer and Michael Smith, the business manager for the Chapel Hill UPS center. Company representatives contacted Rev. Campbell to find out if the rally could be avoided. Both men asked to meet with workers to hear their concerns, Rev. Campbell said, and Mr. Smith mentioned changes he has made to the local center. Rev. Campbell said he made it clear to them that the group's goal is to gather information "about who's at fault (and) where do we draw the line." "After they began to hear some of the stories and what was happening to Dianne, they saw that there was two things there: She was misrepresented by the union, and she definitely was done wrong by UPS, because she should not have to go through what she went through," he said. The workers rejected the request to talk, he said. UPS officials declined to answer questions but issued a statement on Aug. 19. "Any claims of discriminatory practices related to terminations in our Chapel Hill facility are false and completely without merit," UPS spokesman Dan McMackin said in an email. "The terminations in question were due to workplace misconduct which included dishonesty and violations of the UPS Professional Conduct and Anti-Harassment policy. UPS does not tolerate discrimination and it follows disciplinary procedures outlined in its contract with the Teamsters union. UPS welcomes a formal meeting with representatives from the NAACP to discuss this issue." VARITRONICS LLC: Discovery Ruling in Yaakov Case Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ann D. Montgomery affirmed Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's July 1, 2016 Order, denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery regarding facsimile advertisements in the case entitled, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 14-5008 ADM/FLN (D. Minn.). The putative class action arises from eight unsolicited fax advertisements which Defendant sent between November 2013 and February 2014. Plaintiff contends those ads were distributed in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery of the sent fax advertisements without the assistance of R&M Letter Graphics, Inc. Judge Noel denied that request, concluding that the complaint clearly indicates that Plaintiff's claims are limited to only faxes sent by both R&M and Varitronics. The Court held that, although the Complaint does thrice use the phrase "jointly and severally" when describing Varitronics and R&M's cooperation to send offending fax advertisements, this does not invalidate Judge Noel's conclusion that the complaint as a whole clearly indicates that Bais Yaakov's claims are limited to only faxes sent by both R&M and Varitronics Order. Outside of those three instances, the Complaint unequivocally describes Bais Yaakov's claims as being limited to faxes sent by R&M and Varitronics. A copy of Judge Montgomery's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/nq74CHfrom Leagle.com. Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, pro hac vice & Brant D. Penney -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield. Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan R. Freeman -- bfreeman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Jonathan M. Bye -- jbye@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum PLLP & Nicole M. Tupman -- ntupman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum LLP. VCA INC: Class Certification & Summary Judgment Bids Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Tony M. Graham v. VCA Antech, Inc. et al., remains pending, VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for "biohazard waste management" in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the Southern District of California." "The parties have engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 12, 2016. The Defendants' Opposition to the class certification is due in May 2016. As of late July 2016, VCA has filed a reply to Defendants' Opposition to class certification as well as a Summary Judgment Motion and Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Summary Judgment Motion. A hearing on class certification and summary judgment was scheduled for mid-August. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Berkerey" ---------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed a District Court's judgment dismissing a complaint concerning the Plaintiff's billing dispute for his Verizon mobile telephone account. The appellate case is, JOHN C. BERKERY, SR., Appellant, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware General Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Collectively "Verizon"); MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, "Midland"; TRANS UNION CORP, "Trans Union"; EQUIFAX INC, "Equifax"; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC, "Experian", No. 15-3766 (3rd Cir.). Berkerey alleged that Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership improperly charged him for In-Network calls and regularly miscalculated his monthly usage arising out of a mobile- phone contract beginning in August 2008. Berkery's complaint raised statutory claims under the Federal Communications Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's conclusion that the four claims of the Plaintiff are time-barred, as the statutes of limitations for those counts had begun to run in December 2009, when Berkery's contract with Verizon ended, and had each elapsed long before Berkery finally filed suit in February 2015. In addition, the District Court was correct to dismiss Plaintiff's fifth claim with prejudice. Based on the economic loss doctrine, "no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage." The Third Circuit held that Although Berkery notes that the application of the economic loss doctrine to non-negligence claims has been subject to some criticism, Berkery has not shown why it should not apply to the particular circumstances of the case. Finally, the District Court was also held to be correct in concluding that the sixth claim of the Plaintiff, the FCRA claim, was not adequately pleaded. Verizon concedes on appeal that the pleading deficiency could have been cured if Berkery had alleged on information and belief that (1) the credit agencies reported the discrepancy to Verizon, and (2) that Verizon did not conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of the discrepancy. However, these simple allegations do not appear in Berkery's complaint. A copy of the Third Circuit's Decision dated August 19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/kYSy6zfrom Leagle.com. VOLARIS: Securities Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- Volaris states that in the class action lawsuit filed against the company, certain officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the company's initial public offering in New York on February 24, 2015, alleging violations of the securities laws of the United States, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice in favor of the Company and the rest of the defendants. The plaintiff has not appealed the judge's decision and the time to appeal has expired. Accordingly, any right of the plaintiff to pursue the litigation has ended. WELLS FARGO: Settles Student-Loan Case for $4 Million ----------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that Wells Fargo & Co. will pay $3.6 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and $410,000 in restitution to settle the regulator's claims over student-loan servicing policies that it says boosted costs for borrowers. Thousands of student-loan borrowers encountered problems with their loans or received misinformation about their payment options because of breakdowns in Wells Fargo's servicing process, the bureau said in a statement on Aug. 22. "Wells Fargo hit borrowers with illegal fees and deprived others of critical information needed to effectively manage their student loan accounts," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said. "Consumers should be able to rely on their servicer to process and credit payments correctly and to provide accurate and timely information, and we will continue our work to improve the student loan servicing market." WHIRLPOOL: Bid to Compel Non-Party Discovery Denied --------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington denied an expedited motion to compel Respondent Christopher Bandas, a non-party of the action, to appear and produce documents for a deposition after movants ignored the plain language of Rule 45 and Fifth Circuit precedent. The Movants are Plaintiffs in a class action settlement pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of California, Chambers v. Whirlpool, No. 8:11-cv-01733 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 9, 2011). In the Fifth Circuit, personal service of a subpoena is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Movants concede that Bandas has not been personally served with the subpoena; rather, copies of the subpoena have been emailed to Bandas and also dropped off with a receptionist at his office. The case is, In re: Motion to Compel Discovery from Attorney CHRISTOPHER BANDAS, Misc. No. 2:16mc880, No. 8:11cv1733 (S.D. Texas), involves Bandas, a Texas attorney, representing two people objecting to the settlement of the class action, but has not made an appearance in the case and asserts that he has no intention of appearing in the matter as counsel for the objecting members of the class. All other pending motions, construed as responses to the motions to compel, are denied without prejudice as moot. A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/Lj4ghAfrom Leagle.com. In re Christopher Bandas, represented by Christopher Andres Bandas, Bandas Law Firm PC & Eric Steven Stewart, Huseman Dodson & Hummell. Steve Chambers, et al., Movants, represented by Roger B. Greenberg -- roger@smglawgroup.com -- Sponsel Miller Greenberg PLLC & Timothy N. Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP. WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in "Payala" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Suri Payala, the Plaintiff v. Wipro Technologies, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04063- JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order denying class certification of: "all former and current Wipro employees who while working in California during any portion of the period of March 30, 2011 through the date the class notice is mailed: (a) had the job titles listed below; (b) received guaranteed salaries below the statutory threshold for computer workers ($6,587.50 in 2011; $6,752.19 in 2012; $6,927.75 in 2013; $7,010.83 in 2014; $7,165.12 in 2015; and $7,265.43 in 2016); and (c) recorded time on Wipro's TMS program that would entitle them to overtime payments under California law." The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that common questions will predominate at trial and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the issues presented in this action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FEuqk4Jl * ACA Submits Comments on CFPB's Proposed Arbitration Rule ---------------------------------------------------------- ACA International reports that on Aug. 22, ACA International submitted comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Arbitration Agreements issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on May 24, 2016. In the Proposed Rule, the CFPB sought comments on its proposal to ban the use of class action waivers in pre-dispute arbitration agreements, among other things. In its comments, ACA strongly opposed the Proposed Rule which seems to be an ill-advised attempt to regulate a problem that the CFPB has failed to demonstrate actually exists with a "solution" that will effectively eliminate arbitration altogether in the consumer financial marketplace. ACA asserted that not only is the proposed class action waiver ban misguided, but it is also fails to comply with the express conditions imposed by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act and is therefore unlawful. As a result, ACA urged the CFPB to withdraw the Proposed Rule and take a more balanced approach that will allow it to achieve the same public policy goals that it purports to achieve through a ban on class action waivers, but in a way that preserves individual arbitration, does not run afoul of explicit congressional directives, and is fair for consumers and compliance-minded businesses. Specifically, in its comments, ACA described how arbitration benefits consumers by reducing the time to achieve a resolution of claims brought by or against consumers, decreasing the expenses of all parties to the arbitral proceeding as compared to litigation, and limiting the legal and administrative fees of formal litigation. ACA also described how FDCPA cases are uniquely suited to streamlined, effective adjudication through arbitration. In terms of the class action waiver ban, ACA pointed out that in the debt collection industry, class action lawsuits frequently get filed despite lacking the necessary criteria to move forward as a class. Oftentimes, such class filings are used strategically in hopes of increasing a settlement offer, but because resources frequently do not exist for companies to go through the time- consuming and expensive process to successfully defeat class certification or to fight against meritless claims, this kind of opportunistic strategy can be very successful. However, in those instances in which arbitration agreements contain class action waivers, they play an important role by offering legitimate debt collectors, especially small businesses, a way to quickly and more easily defeat inappropriate class action lawsuits. In addition to the important role arbitration and class action waiver bans play in the debt collection industry, ACA also discussed why the proposal is not supported by findings in the CFPB's arbitration study, nor is it "in the public interest and for the protection of consumers," specific requirements laid out by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act. ACA argued that without conclusive evidence that demonstrates consumers will not be harmed by the loss of individual arbitration -- an indirect, though widely expected consequence of the proposal to ban class action waivers -- nor conclusive evidence that demonstrates consumers are better served by resolution via class action litigation than individual arbitration -- which the CFPB's current data fails to support -- the proposed class action waiver ban is simply not supported by the study. ACA also argued that because it would no longer make economic sense for companies to subsidize the cost of individual arbitrations without receiving a corresponding benefit to shield against class action exposure, many if not most companies will decide to forego inserting arbitration clauses in new contracts if the class action waiver prohibition becomes finalized. Reducing consumer choice by effectively eliminating arbitration, along with creating a dispute system with overall higher costs that will inevitably get passed on to consumers, will expose consumers to harm and is therefore neither in the public interest nor for the protection of consumers. In the comments, ACA also highlighted some of the incorrect and unfair assumptions made about financial service companies by the CFPB in its attempt to justify the proposed ban on class action waivers. ACA urged that instead of relying on a broken class action system where the only clear winners are trial attorneys, the CFPB could further incentivize compliant behavior by proactively identifying the types of acts or practices that it believes are unfair, deceptive, or abusive so that companies can take steps to avoid them, as well as by identifying best practices or providing examples of compliant behavior. Finally, ACA emphasized that the CFPB can lawfully achieve the same public policy goals that it seeks through the Proposed Rule by actively monitoring arbitrations, analyzing and reporting on arbitration trends, taking appropriate enforcement actions in response to such trends, and educating consumers on the arbitration process and its availability as a low or no-cost option to bring a claim against a financial service provider. By taking this more balanced approach, the Bureau can continue to develop an understanding of arbitration proceedings without exposing consumers and compliance-minded businesses to the harm that will flow from the eradication of arbitration in the consumer financial marketplace. Given the wide-sweeping implications of the CFPB's proposal, in addition to submitting individual comments, ACA also joined 28 other industry associations and organizations in a letter to the CFPB which also requested that the CFPB withdraw the Proposed Rule, or at a minimum, adopt a more tailored approach that would preserve consumers' access to arbitration. * Conservative Group Challenges CFPB's Arbitration Rule ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a conservative group is challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's proposed rule banning class-action waivers in financial contracts, saying the agency failed to provide enough data to support its premise. Cause of Action Institute says in a filing with the CFPB that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Information Quality Act by disseminating a 728-page report that purports to show how class actions benefit consumers, when it actually demonstrates the opposite. Critics say the report ignores strong evidence that class actions are costly and ineffective at distributing benefits to consumers compared with individual arbitration, a quicker process where companies frequently pay all the costs of litigation. Arbitration opponents, including plaintiff lawyers and some academics and consumer activists, say class-action waivers effectively deprive consumers of the right to sue for damages in court, since most consumer disputes are too small to justify hiring a lawyer. Cause of Action said the proposed rule, which would ban arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts, is "arbitrary and capricious," citing a study by Jason Johnston of the University of Virginia Law School and Todd Zywicki of George Mason's Scalia Law School. That study found the CFPB's report included data on the amount consumers recovered in arbitration awards but not what they got through settlements, while it did include settlement amounts for class actions (which nearly always settle). The agency also aggregated class-action settlements, making the recoveries for consumers look higher because of a few huge settlements. Even so, the CFPB report found that class actions filed between 2010 and 2013 that later settled delivered around $32 per consumer while the lawyers took in $425 million in fees. The much smaller number of arbitrations that went to a decision delivered an average of $5,389 per consumer. The CFPB also failed to discuss what Johnston and Zywicki call the most important policy question underlying the proposal to ban class-action waivers: Whether class actions are an efficient and socially desirable way to resolve consumer financial disputes. The agency simply accepts at face value the contention of plaintiff lawyers that they have a deterrent effect that cause companies to behave better than they otherwise would. Cause of Action isn't the only one challenging the CFPB, a uniquie federal agency that operates almost entirely without executive or legislative oversight. Its funding comes directly from the Federal Reserve and control rests with the executive director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, who is removable by the President only for cause. PHH Corp. is challenging the constitutionality of the agency in a frontal assault, argued in April, that is awaiting a decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. * Lawsuits Challenge Universities' 403(b) Retirement Plans ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that the plaintiffs law firm that's been Enemy No. 1 to Corporate America when it comes to litigation over retirement plans has a new target -- the country's largest universities. Roughly a dozen universities have been hit with suits in August charging the schools with wasting retiree money on needless record-keeping, offering underperforming plans and failing to use their leverage to negotiate lower fees. Many of the suits are backed by Schlichter Bogard & Denton -- a St. Louis firm that has led the way in class litigation over retirement plans and reaped significant legal fees over the past few years. Baker & Hostetler Cleveland partner John McGowan -- jmcgowan@bakerlaw.com -- who specializes in litigation involving benefit plans, said universities may have landed in Schlichter's crosshairs because their retirement plans historically have not been subject to the same scrutiny as corporate plans. "It's not an area where a lot of attention has been paid to dotting the i's and crossing the t's," he said. Technically, the university suits mainly challenge 403(b) retirement plans, which are available to employees of colleges and universities, religious organizations and other nonprofit entities. Until several years ago, the Internal Revenue Service had regulated such plans more loosely, but that ended with rules implemented in 2009. Some universities have been slow to adapt to those rules, which treat their retirement plans much like 401(k) plans or layered new plans on top of old, defense lawyers said, leaving them exposed to litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. "If you're a big enough fund and your fiduciary duty is to get the best pricing going forward, then why aren't you using your leverage?" Mr. McGowan said. "That's what appeals to the plaintiffs' bar -- when they can catch someone with a fiduciary duty being asleep at the switch." For the plaintiffs bar, "it's really as simple as realizing there's a whole additional universe of plans that may have gotten less attention than in the past," Dechert partner Andrew Oringer said. He added: "It would seem like a good time for universities generally to review their legal compliance an their tax compliance and put themselves in the best position to deal with possible allegations." 'LESS OVERSIGHT' The university lawsuits challenge practices at New York University, Duke University, the Vanderbilt, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, Emory, Johns Hopkins, University of Southern California, the University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale -- employers responsible for billions in assets and representing tens of thousands of retirees and people saving for retirement. Defense attorneys are just now starting to make their initial appearances in those cases. In Tracey v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for one, Alison Douglass of Goodwin Procter and Brian Boyle and Meaghan VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers have been tapped to represent MIT. They'll be facing off against Jerome Schlichter and his colleagues at Schlichter Bogard. Mr. Schlichter said the suits are the result of a "sea change" in American pension plans, in which employees doing the funding now have more incentive to question fees and management practices. "It's our position that university employees are entitled under ERISA to the same protections for their retirement assets as employees of private companies," Mr. Schlichter said. "In some cases, we allege that the fiduciary obligation has not been complied with -- and historically, there has been less oversight of funds in the university space than in private companies." Employees of universities, he said, "have been paying significantly more for investments and record-keeping than they should -- and this is an erosion they have to answer for." Mr. Schlichter's firm has a track record on fee cases that has earned it the praise of federal judges for saving American workers billions of dollars. The firm has also taken home sizable legal fees in connection with its retirement-plan litigation earlier this year, a $57 million settlement with Boeing Co. resulted $19 million in attorney fees. Another plaintiffs firm, Sanford Heisler, filed a suit on Aug. 16 against Columbia University in the Southern District of New York. Charles Field, a partner at the firm, said, "For so long, everyone focused on corporations and big enterprises and didn't pay much attention to colleges." But, he added, the problem of multiple record-keeping merits scrutiny because "it's inefficient and it drives up costs." "When you look at all these cases, they have a very common thread, one is they use multiple record-keepers -- it's almost as if they shopped at the same tailor," he said. "The second thing you see about the college plans is they offer a bewildering number of options. How do you choose? It's hard enough shopping at the grocery store, how do you choose between 150 options?" DEFENSE STRATEGIES Patrick Spangler -- pspangler@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price's ERISA litigation practice said the wave of complaints filed in the past few weeks may also be the result of a transitional period where universities are catching up to private businesses. Some universities may have allowed faculty to keep traditional investment options they are comfortable with, while also adding new options, he said. That's contributed to allegations that too many offerings have muddied the waters for the consumer. "The trend has been toward offering more streamlined investment options and that's what most of the investment advisers and consultants in the industry are advising for 401(k)s and 403(b)s," Mr. Spangler said. There's no magic number, he added, but "when you're up to 15 or so investment options . . . you increase the risk of that type of argument -- that you're running too many." Dechert's Oringer said universities may be able to defend the use of multiple record-keepers. "It's never going to be one size fits all," he said. "There's nothing inherently wrong with having two record-keepers if in fact the people who are making the choice as to how to structure their plans are reasonably looking at the right and relevant considerations." Defense lawyers agree that it is critical for universities to take a close look at how investments are made and document that process so that, if sued, they can point to rational and conflict-free decision-making as a defense. "An awful lot of the college and university culture is to do what the guy down the street is doing -- and some might have been in the public sector and so they'll just run it the same way," Mr. McGowan said. "So all of a sudden, maybe, just maybe, colleges and universities get influenced by alumni who happen to be donors -- an enterprising plaintiffs' lawyer is going to focus on that." * New Entrants Drives Upward Trend in Australian Class Action Risk ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sol Dolor, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that lawyers and law firms themselves are one of the major contributors to increased class action risk for organizations in Australia, a new study revealed. In the Class Action Risk 2016 report, Allens found that data from 2005 to the present, with a particular focus on the past 18 months, reveal that new entrants to the class action space is driving an upward trend in class action risk. "Indeed, class actions are much more likely to be driven by the entrepreneurial pursuits of lawyers and funders than other litigation," the law firm noted in its report. New entrants -- or law firms which are relatively or completely new to filing class action lawsuits -- significantly increased the number of filings and particularly competing claims which may increase complications for organizations. According to the data analyzed by Allens, the most significant players in the space based on long-term trends are Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon. Recent trends, however, indicate a shift. While approximately 20% of filings since 2013 can be attributed to Maurice Blackburn, about 54% can be attributed to eight firms that have filed three or more claims during that period, the law firm said. All of these eight with the exception of Slater & Gordon are not traditionally known as plaintiff class action firms. Furthermore, the remaining 26% are from 15 firms who have filed either one or two claims since 2013. Firms are either looking for repeat class action practices or are looking trying their first class action suit. "The main driver for this trend is a small number of firms attempting to establish repeat class action practices," Allens writes. There are varying reasons while law firms are entering the space. Maddens and Squire Patton Boggs recently saw success in natural disaster and financial services claims, respectively, Allens notes. Mark Elliot who data from Allens indicate is responsible for more claims than anyone other than Maurice Blackburn, has interest in shareholder class actions. Meanwhile, Allens noted that the trend "is also being driven by other firms with little or no class actions experience bringing their first or second class action." For lawsuits like this, Allens advises organisations being sued to be more cautious and vigilant. Apart from resulting in claims that are more speculative, the relative inexperience of the firms involved "has the potential to create significant practical and reputational issues for the defendants they sue," Allens wrote. "To a large extent, these issues arise from the fact that class action law and practice is now heavily embedded in hundreds of interlocutory judgments and orders to the point where even the most careful reading of the legislation will give rise to misconceptions as to accepted and required practice," it added. Nonetheless, new entrants will not likely have a sustained impact on the class action space in the coming years, Allens asserted. With that said, some of these firms could build reputation and expertise in the field and become repeat players. "As they become more experienced, they are more likely to develop relationships with litigation funders which will expand their capacity to bring claims in the future. This has the potential to further increase class action risk," said Allens. * Report Shows Spike in Shareholder Class Actions in Australia -------------------------------------------------------------- Fleur Anderson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that entrepreneurial law firms are scrambling to get a slice of class-action profits, leading to a spike in shareholder class actions against listed companies over the past 18 months. Over the long term, banks and financial services companies will be the most frequent targets of many of these new smaller firms trying to break the dominance of the class-action behemoths, Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon. The latest Class Action Risk report from Allens and Linklaters shows a sharp spike in class actions in 2014 and 2015, with 35 and 34 claims respectively. Unless there is a rush of filings in the next few months, 2016 is unlikely to repeat those record class-action levels, but Allens partner Jenny Campbell -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au -- warns there's a clear upwards trend. "The most significant contributor to this trend has been the number of law firms looking to establish class-action practices and taking an entrepreneurial approach to identifying and promoting claims," she said. The Allens research finds that since 2013, Maurice Blackburn is responsible for about 20 per cent of class-action claims. Added risk for defendants About 54 per cent of claims are attributed to eight firms that have filed three or more claims during the period and all of those firms -- with the exception of Slater & Gordon -- were previously not known for class actions. The remaining 26 per cent of claims are attributed to 15 firms that are newcomers to the area, having filed only their first or second claim. "Ultimately, what I think that is about is that more and more lawyers are realising that there is an opportunity to develop what can be a very profitable practice in this area and they can get a slice of the action," Ms. Campbell said. "That means more claims are being picked up, and it's just inevitable that more speculative claims are going to be picked up." The combination of more players in the market and more speculative claims is leading to the increased risk for companies of being the target of a class-action claim. For the companies being sued by these new entrants, there's an added risk to the obvious time and money involved in defending themselves. "In our experience, the relative inexperience of these firms in the class-action context has the potential to create significant practical and reputational issues for the defendants they sue," Ms Campbell said. Finance networking And as the new firms become more experienced in class action, they are more likely to develop relationships with litigation funders - - like IMF Bentham Limited, LCM Litigation Fund, and Litman Partners -- which will increase their ability to finance more claims. The report also shows a spike in shareholder class actions against listed companies in the past 18 months, and longer-term trends suggest that banks and financial services companies are the most frequent targets. With mounting political pressure for a bank industry royal commission, the rising class-action risk only adds to the headaches for finance industry chiefs. Over the past year, more than 25 per cent of class-action claims have targeted the financial services sector and are most frequently related to the mis-selling of financial products, the risk rating of financial products, lending practices, and compliance with trustee obligations. However, Ms. Campbell said it was important to keep the 12-month trend in context because eight of those class actions were directed at Standard & Poor's rating of US mortgage-backed securities in the fallout from the global financial crisis, and 11 relate to fees imposed by major banks. "It remains to be seen whether filings in this sector are sustained in the years to come," Ms. Campbell said. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *