/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160920.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 188 Headlines ACH FOOD: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "All Natural" Label ADCARE HEALTH: Says Cleveland Class Action Fully Settled and Paid ADVERTISING SPECIALTY: Faces "Hope" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act AECOM: Faces "Graves" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations AECOM: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set AIRLINE RESTAURANT: "Benitez-Ramirez" Alleges Violation of FLSA ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Discovery Commenced in Class Action ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement in "Brown" Has Preliminary Approval ALJ REGIONAL: Factual Discovery Continues in "McNeil" ALLERGAN PLC: Faces UHH Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: "Mauer" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss AMERICAN RENAL: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: "Hardgers-Powell" Alleges FLSA Violation APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Utah Over "Touch Disease" Issue ATLANTIC COAST: "Crawford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492 ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Securities Litigation Pending BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Reader" Suit in District of Arizona BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Insurance Price Increases BISCO INC: Court Accepts $3,600 Deposit, Nixes Fulton Dental Suit CALIFORNIA: "Marchetti" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Green" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA CARING HEART: Faces "Conteh" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act CHADBOURNE & PARKE: 14 Female Partners Won't Join Class Action CINEMARK: Judge Tosses Aurora Shooting Survivors' Class Action CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. DALLAS CENTRAL: Trinity Square Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: RMB Richardson Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Skyline Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: South Tollway Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Trails Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Arledge" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act ENERVEST OPERATING: "Mojave" Suit Moved to N.D. of Oklahoma ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: E.D. Mo. Court Won't Hear "Fisher" Suit EVOQUA WATER: "Massa" Suit Removed from Cty. Ct. to M.D. Fla. EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "Moore" Suit in District of Utah GREENWISE ORGANIC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Act HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Filed Exhibit to Class Cert. Bid HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Fix CR-V Issues IDENTIV INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rok" Suit IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Sent to Arbitration INNERWORKINGS INC: Settlement in "Van Noppen" Case Still Pending INTERNET TECHNOLOGY: Faces Daisy Inc. Suit in M.D. of Florida IPAYMENT INC: Faces "Bickelmann" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Blackwell" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Artis" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Sale of Baby Powder KBK SERVICES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Ricard" KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Holmes" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Products Liability Case Vacated KOCH FOODS: Faces "Gross" Antitrust Lawsuit Over Broiler Sale LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Defending "Garfield" Class Action LINC ENERGY: Queensland Gov't May Face Liability for Class Action LOWE'S COS: Faces "Foster" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Law LLOYDS TSB BANK: Can't Compel Plaintiffs to Present Trial Plan M&T BANK: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA MARRONE BIO: Sept. 22 Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled MERCER CANYONS: Yakima Farm Workers' Class Action Can Proceed MIZUHO BANK: Appeal in Mt. Gox Customers' Class Action Tossed NANTKWEST INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case NANTKWEST INC: Defending Suit Related to Initial Public Offering NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Cal Football Players File Concussion Suit NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces 7 More Class Action Concussion Lawsuits NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters' Case Still Pending NUUN & COMPANY: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action OUTERWALL INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Class Action in Washington OVC: Ex-Murray State Athlete Files Concussion Class Action PAYMENT DATA: Parties in "McFarland" to Meet & Confer on Sept. 28 PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Customers' Class Action Upheld PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: "D'Aversa" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action in California PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Final Settlement Hearing Set PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Coleman" Class Action Dismissed PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Vazquez" Class Action Dismissed QUALITY BUILT: Gates at Williams-Brice Suit Goes to State Court REGENCY PARTY: Faces "Deneus" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA RELENTLESS RECOVERY: Faces "Caringi" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation RFS HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Advisors Action RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Adelman" Suit RIGHTSCORP INC: Nov. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set ROBERT HALF: Attorney's Fee Award in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed SAM'S WEST: Court Dismisses SCUTPA Claim in "Fejzulai" Suit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Says Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust Case Pending SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Action Administratively Closed SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs and Marler Dismissed Lawsuit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Antitrust Suit Underway SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Koppitz" Lawsuit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Mallory" Action SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Hendrix" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA SOCIAL SECURITY: Robson's U.S. Totalization Benefits Affirmed SOLAR CITY: Faces "Daugherty" Labor Litigation in California SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Boyd" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issue TATA CONSULTANCY: "Hall" Suit Seeks Moved to S.D. Cal. TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Airbag Recall UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Urges Calif. Judge to Reject NLRB Subpoenas UNITED SERVICES: Five Attorneys Face Sanctions in Class Action UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Suit Agaisnt DOL's Fiduciary Rule VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Labor Laws VOLKSWAGEN AG: 200,000 Vehicle Owners Opt for Buyback Program VOLKSWAGEN AG: ACCC to Launch Legal Action Over "Defeat Software" VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Questions Fairness of Settlement WAKE FOREST: "Burkholder" Suit Transferred to N. Dist. of Ill. WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Block Wage Class Action Trial WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Sanctions Motions in "Cortina" Suit WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order XEROX STATE: Faces "Kelly" Suit in California Superior Court * NLRB, EY Want Supreme Court to Review Class Action Waivers * Proposed CFPB Changes May Cost Financial Firms $100MM a Year * Recent S.C. Court Rulings to Impact Securities Class Actions * Spike in Securities Class Actions Won't Hit D&O Insurance Space ********* ACH FOOD: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "All Natural" Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas J. Behr, Esq., Arthur S. Garrett III, Esq., Robert S. Niemann, Esq., Manesh K. Rath, Esq., and Christopher G. Van Gundy, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that demand letters under consumer protection statutes should not be ignored and may, in limited instances, offer a way to head off significant litigation. For instance, in Demmler v. ACH Food Companies, Inc., Case No. 15-13556 (D. Mass. Jun. 9, 2016), a federal judge dismissed the plaintiff's purported class action after finding that the defendant had paid plaintiff more than he could individually recover even though the check was never cashed. Demmler, individually and on behalf of a purported class, sued ACH Food Companies, Inc. ("ACH") under Massachusetts law, alleging that ACH's Weber BBQ sauces were deceptively labeled and advertised as "All Natural" because they contained caramel color. Demmler's action sought money damages but not an injunction, presumably, because ACH had already stopped making "All Natural" claims by the time Demmler initially contacted them. Before filing suit, Demmler's attorney sent ACH a Demand for Relief seeking, both individually and for the class, "actual damages (of the greater of money spent on Product purchases or statutory damages of $25), modification of the Products' labeling, and reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees." In response, ACH sent a $75 check, which notably had no conditions or restrictions. Instead, ACH only characterized the check as "the extent of [ACH's] willingness to compromise in the circumstances." Demmler's attorney rejected the check as inadequate because it only provided relief to Demmler and did not provide relief for the class. After a further exchange of letters and after Demmler filed suit, ACH sent Demmler a second, unconditional $75 check that was certified and claimed that the suit was moot. Demmler's attorney again rejected the check. ACH moved to dismiss the case as moot by arguing the $75 check effectively provided more relief than the court could provide and pointed out that the $75 represented three times the amount of statutory damages available to Demmler or, alternatively, the cost of 20 bottles of sauce. After evaluating all factors, the court determined that Demmler's personal claim was moot for the reasons asserted by ACH. Of particular importance to the Court was the fact that ACH had made the check available without restrictions and conditions, such that Demmler was not required to cash the check, or even accept it, to have obtained all the relief individually available to him. Thus, the court determined that Demmler had no claim to judgment and therefore his action was moot. Further, the court found that Demmler's claim for a share of the potential attorneys' fees as well as his unsupported claim to sharing litigation expenses were insufficient to keep his claim alive. The court therefore granted ACH's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case. In granting ACH's Motion to Dismiss, the court also dismissed the purported class action. The court found that because Demmler's claim was moot, there was no basis to proceed with the class claim, especially as no motion to certify the class had been filed prior to ACH's tendering of the check. The Court observed that there was no evidence that companies generally, or ACH in particular, tendered such payments in an effort to moot any such challenge to food labeling or advertising. The Demmler case shows that creative responses to demand letters may prevent further litigation. However, ACH's success in this case may be a result of the specific facts, including the fact that ACH had already ceased making the challenged "All Natural" claim before receiving the demand letter. ADCARE HEALTH: Says Cleveland Class Action Fully Settled and Paid ----------------------------------------------------------------- AdCare Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, the Amy Cleveland class action has been fully settled and paid. The Company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit captioned Amy Cleveland et. al. v. APHR&R Nursing, LLC et al filed on March 4, 2015 in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th Circuit (the "Cleveland Class Action"). On December 16, 2015, the Company's insurance carrier reached a settlement with each of the individual plaintiffs on behalf of the Company and all other defendants by which separate payments are to be made by the Company's carrier to the plaintiffs. The individual settlements were contingent upon approval by the probate courts having jurisdiction over the deceased plaintiffs' respective estates, if applicable. During the quarter ended March 30, 2016, all but two of the individual settlement agreements were approved and the settlement consideration paid to the plaintiffs. During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, the remaining two settlement agreements were approved and the settlement consideration paid to the plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2016, the Cleveland Class Action has been fully settled and paid. ADVERTISING SPECIALTY: Faces "Hope" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Hope, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advertising Specialty Institute, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-04823-CDJ (E.D. Pa., September 7, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Advertising Specialty Institute, Inc. is a promotional product membership organization. AECOM: Faces "Graves" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GRAVES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AECOM, MICHAEL S. BURKE, W. TROY RUDD, and STEPHEN M. KADENACY, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06605 (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of AECOM between February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016, both dates inclusive. AECOM together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing, building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com AECOM: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AECOM ("AECOM" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv- 06605, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AECOM securities between February 11, 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 AECOM securities during the Class Period, you have until October 31, 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. AECOM together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing, building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets worldwide. The Company operates through three segments: Design and Consulting Services (DCS), Construction Services (CS), and Management Services (MS). The DCS segment provides planning, consulting, architectural and engineering design, program management, and construction management services for industrial, commercial, institutional, and government clients, such as transportation, facilities, environmental, and energy/power markets. The CS segment offers building construction and energy, as well as infrastructure and industrial construction services. The MS segment provides program and facilities management and maintenance, training, logistics, consulting, technical assistance, and systems integration and information technology services primarily for agencies of the U.S. government and other national governments. On October 17, 2014, AECOM announced that the Company had finalized its acquisition of URS Corp. ("URS" and the "URS Acquisition"). 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) AECOM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive business practices (ii) AECOM lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) AECOM overstated the benefits of the URS Acquisition; (iv) AECOM overstated the Company's free cash flow per share; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, AECOM's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 16, 2016, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report on AECOM (the "Spruce Point Report"), stating that "after a careful forensic financial and accounting analysis of AECOM's recent financial results and condition, we believe that AECOM's stock is worth approximately 33% - 45% less than its current price." Among other issues, the Spruce Point Report cited AECOM management's "misaligned incentive structure," pursuant to which the Company's "CEO's $18 million compensation in 2015 [was] heavily tied to its aggressive interpretation of its Free Cash Flow per share," and asserted that the Company had misrepresented the costs and benefits of the URS Acquisition. On this news, AECOM stock fell $1.65, or 4.7%, to close at $33.44 on August 16, 2016, damaging investors. 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. AIRLINE RESTAURANT: "Benitez-Ramirez" Alleges Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Marco Benitez-Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chris Meskouris, Individually and The Airline Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Jackson Hole, Case 1:16-cv- 04906 (September 1, 2016), seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher/delivery man for the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 960 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-344-9022 Fax: 212-344-0301 ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Discovery Commenced in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has commenced in the putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company said, "On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of our service providers under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney's fees. We answered the complaint on February 26, 2016." "On March 24, 2016, we filed a motion to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to be consolidated with 23 other similar and related pending TCPA actions. That motion was denied on June 2, 2016. Discovery has commenced, and the matter remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California." ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement in "Brown" Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, Faneuil is named as a defendant in a proposed class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case, styled Brown, et al., v. Transurban USA, Inc., et al., was filed on April 15, 2015. The parties have reached a tentative settlement and the Court has given preliminary approval to the settlement. The parties are in the process of notifying potential class members of the proposed settlement and receiving final approval of the settlement. Faneuil's outside counsel estimated that the maximum exposure was $90,000. As such, Faneuil accrued $90,000 during the nine months ended June 30, 2016. ALJ REGIONAL: Factual Discovery Continues in "McNeil" ----------------------------------------------------- ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Faneuil is a defendant in a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collection action case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case, styled McNeil v. Faneuil, Inc. remains pending before the Court. The Court granted conditional certification for a class of employees who worked in Faneuil's Virginia facilities; however, the parties conducted discovery regarding the proper scope of a potential class and the Plaintiffs have moved for Conditional Nationwide Class Certification. The motion has been briefed and the parties are awaiting oral argument and a decision on the matter. The parties are also continuing factual discovery related to liability and damages issues. ALLERGAN PLC: Faces UHH Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Allergan PLC. The case is captioned UNITE HERE HEALTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN PLC, ACTAVIS, PLC, IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., LANNETT COMPANY, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC., and WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-04818-CMR (E.D. Penn., Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Allergan, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, is a global pharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG 1835 Market St Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 519 8306 E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: "Mauer" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMY MAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY, INC., AIU ONLINE, LLC, EVEREST UNIVERSITY, EVEREST UNIVERSITY ONLINE, ZENITH EDUCATION GROUP, INC., ECMC GROUP, INC., and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, No. 16 C 1473 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis denied the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants American Intercontinental University, Inc. and AIU Online, LLC (collectively, "AIU"); and Everest University, Everest University Online, Zenith Education Group, Inc., and ECMC Group, Inc. (collectively, "Everest"). Amy Mauer brought a class action complaint against AIU, Everest, and John Doe Corporation, asserting that the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) without her express consent. AIU and Everest filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Mauer has not adequately tied them to the call she received or adequately alleged that the call she received came from an ATDS. Judge Ellis denied their motions because, based on the facts alleged in Mauer's amended class action complaint, she has sufficiently pleaded a basis to hold AIU and Everest vicariously liable and that John Doe utilized an ATDS while calling her cellular phone. A full-text copy of Judge Ellis' September 7, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/2Icudx from Leagle.com. Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Brooks -- bbrooks@ssrllp.com -- Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, pro hac vice. Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice. Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Rifkind, Law Office of Norman Rifkind. American Intercontinental University, Inc., AIU Online, LLC, Defendants, represented by Terance A. Gonsalves -- terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Carrie Melissa Stickel -- carrie.stickel@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman Llp. Everest University, Everest University Online, Zenith Education Group, Inc., ECMC Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by David J. Kaminski -- kaminski@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer Llp & Gordon Kenneth Walton -- gkwalton@waltonlawgroupllc.com -- Walton Law Group LLC. AMERICAN RENAL: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. ("American Renal" 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-06841, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to American Renal's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about April 21, 2016 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between April 21, 2016 and August 18, 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") Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased American Renal securities during the Class Period, you have until October 31, 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. American Renal operates as a dialysis services provider in the United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships with physicians. The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates kidney dialysis facilities for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease ("ESRD"). As of March 31, 2016, it owned and operated 194 dialysis clinics in 25 states and the District of Columbia. On or about April 21, 2016, American Renal completed its IPO, issuing 8.625 million shares of common stock and raising net proceeds of approximately $189.75 million. 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) American Renal was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to steer patients away from qualified-for Medicare and Medicaid plans into more expensive Affordable Care Act ("ACA") plans to obtain greater reimbursement for the Company's dialysis services; (ii) the foregoing scheme was in violation of federal and state laws; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, American Renal's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 1, 2016, three insurance companies filed a lawsuit against American Renal and an affiliated entity in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that American Renal was engaged in a "fraudulent and illegal scheme" that involved persuading patients who qualified for Medicare or Medicaid coverage to enroll in commercial healthcare plans and then putting those patients in touch with an American Renal- patronized charity that would pay the patients' insurance premiums in full or in part. As Medicaid and Medicare provide for only predetermined reimbursement rates for dialysis services, the suit alleges that American Renal would thus receive much larger reimbursements from the ACA insurer as a commercial payor than it would have from Medicare or Medicaid coverage. On news of the lawsuit, American Renal's stock price fell $2.82 per share, or 9.88%, to close at $25.71 on July 5, 2016, the next trading day. On August 18, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the "Agency"), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced that it had sent warning letters to all dialysis centers that participate in the federal Medicare program. The Agency also stated that it is weighing financial penalties on providers found to have directed people eligible for Medicare into ACA plans instead -- as American Renal is alleged to have done. On this news, American Renal's share price fell $2.31, or 10.44%, to close at $19.81 on August 19, 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. ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: "Hardgers-Powell" Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSE HARDGERS-POWELL and YOLANDA CLAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs vs. ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC; ANGELS IN YOUR HOME; DAVID WEGMAN, individually and in his role as owner of ANGELS IN YOUR HOME and/or ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC; and ANDY WEGMAN, individually and in his role as owner of ANGELS IN YOUR HOME and/or ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-06612 (W.D.N.Y., September 7, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC -- http://www.angelsinyourhome.com-- is a home care services agency. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 7635 Main St. Fishers P.O. Box 440 Fishers, NY 14453 Phone: (585) 869-0210 E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com - and - Justin M. Cordello, Esq. CORDELLO LAW, PLLC 693 East Avenue, Suite 220 Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: (585) 857-9684 E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Utah Over "Touch Disease" Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Adams, writing for KSL.com, reports that a Utah law firm is taking Apple to court with a class action lawsuit over the "touch disease" phenomenon paralyzing iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus devices. Attorneys with Christensen, Young & Associates filed the suit in federal court in Utah on Aug. 31, alleging Apple had a "longstanding knowledge" of a design defect that led to the problem, and has refused to repair and replace affected iPhones without charge to the phones' owners. "We are seeking damages and what we ultimately want is for Apple to either make some sort of amends with (money) or provide new phones to the clients," attorney Zane Christensen said. The lawsuit currently includes seven named plaintiffs from Utah, but Mr. Christensen said his legal team was seeking any others who had experienced the same troubles and had interest in joining the action. Mr. Christensen said Apple pushes users to purchase a new iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus that can suffer from the same defect, or the company charges owners to install a new IC touch unit. "It's putting a Band-Aid on top of a Band-Aid instead of fixing the real problem," Mr. Christensen said. "What they're doing is just charging individuals a couple hundred dollars for these service calls basically to give them another ticking time bomb." Mr. Christensen said sensor chips correlated to the phone's touch movements were not properly secured to the logic board during production. Midvale-based iQue Repair manager Rob McElaney said symptoms of the issue can include white or gray flickering lines on the screen, along with the touch screen losing functionality. Mr. McElaney said his store alone has been receiving as many as 10 calls per week about touch disease troubles, which happen to be one of the few problems his technicians cannot resolve and have to refer back to Apple. "Sometimes you can hard reset your phone and that will temporarily alleviate the problem, but over time it's just going to get you stuck," he said. "Not every 6 Plus that we touch has this issue, but -- increasingly so -- it's becoming a real problem." The Utah-based class action appears to be the second lawsuit of its kind filed against Apple, with the other going before a federal court in California. Attempts to reach Apple for comment on Aug. 31 did not immediately result in a response. ATLANTIC COAST: "Crawford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492 -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit styled William Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Coast Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-01813, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08583 to the proceeding. The Crawford case is being consolidated with MDL 2492 in re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 18, 2013. The actions before the Panel seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. In its December 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. John Z. Lee, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:13-cv-09116. The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) is a collegiate athletic conference in the United States of America in which its 15 member universities compete in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)'s Division I, with its football teams competing in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), the highest levels for athletic competition in US-based collegiate sports. The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM 2859 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 Telephone: (317) 920 6400 Facsimile: (317) 920 6405 E-mail: winingham@wkw.com The Atlantic Coast Conference is represented by: Michael A. Grill, Esq. HOLLAND AND KNIGHT, LLP 131 South Dearborn, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 578 6644 E-mail: michael.grill@hklaw.com The National Collegiate Athletic Association appears pro se. ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Management Group, LLC. The case is titled Steven Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Management Group, LLC and Keith B. Cullen, Case No. 1684CV02798 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016). Atlantic Management Group is a professional construction management and general contracting firm based in Southern New England. AMG specializes in the planning and construction of restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, throughout the East Coast. The Plaintiff is represented by: Preston W. Leonard Leonard Law Office, P.C. 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 329-1295 E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Securities Litigation Pending -------------------------------------------------------- AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, titled In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litig., remains pending. In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against us and our former officer Nathaniel Bradley and former officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege various causes of action against the defendants arising from our announcement that our previously issued financial results for the first three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer be relied upon. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. "We have responded to the complaints and also filed a motion to dismiss. We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, our management currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to these matters. As of December 31, 2015, we have paid the deductible pursuant to the D&O insurance policy, in the amount of $100,000 regarding this matter," the Company said. On July 25, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, titled In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litig. The consolidated case was brought against the Company and two former Officers following the restatement of the 2015 quarterly financial statements of the Company. The agreement was reached in connection with a voluntary mediation led by Bob Meyer, a mediator with JAMS in Los Angeles. The settlement agreement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval. The terms of the agreement include a settlement payment to the class of $1,525,000 from the Company's insurer, with no admission of liability by any party. BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Reader" Suit in District of Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Banner Health. The case is entitled Jane Reader, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Banner Health, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02994-ROS (D. Ariz., Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Senior Judge is Roslyn O Silver. Banner Health provides services in women's health, men's health and disease treatment to Western and Midwestern states. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M Berger, Esq. Eric H Gibbs, Esq. GERARD GIBBS LLP 505 14th St., Ste. 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350 9700 Facsimile: (510) 350 9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com - and - Robert A Mosier, Esq. SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 2860 Michelle Dr., Ste. 220 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (877) 480 9142 Facsimile: (213) 477 2120 E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Insurance Price Increases --------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Scism, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Americans are starting to fight back against a wave of insurance- price increases on decades-old life policies. Over the past year, several major insurers have notified tens of thousands of people of higher costs to keep their policies in force, with increases ranging from midsingle-digit percentages to more than 200%, according to financial advisers. To justify the increases, they blamed the impact on their investments from the Federal Reserve's decision to keep interest rates lower for longer. At least a half-dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts against insurers including Aegon NV's Transamerica unit and Legal & General Group PLC's Banner Life. In many of the suits, which seek class-action status and damages, the plaintiffs contend insurance firms are hiding behind little- used contract provisions to rummage up cash for shareholder dividends. They also argue that increased lifespans have offset the negative impact on profits of lower bond yields. The insurers counter that these cost increases are permitted under provisions that allow them to charge up to a maximum amount, based on expectations of future policy performance. The insurers claim those expectations have plummeted with the Fed keeping short-term interest rates at near zero for nearly eight consecutive years. Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen signaled that the central bank could possibly start to raise rates, but many analysts don't see rates increasing meaningfully enough soon to change the situation for insurers. "Companies are under a lot of pressure to boost returns in this low-interest-rate environment, and this is one lever they have," said Scott Robinson, an associate managing director at Moody's Investors Service. "Companies have to weigh the right they may have versus what impact it might have on their reputation in the marketplace with the various parties." Among upset policyholders is Raymond Foos, an 87-year-old retired manufacturing chief executive who purchased an $11 million policy in 2003 to benefit his children. This spring, Transamerica informed him of an increase that he said will cost him nearly $300,000 a year, on top of the $2.25 million he paid as a lump sum to buy the policy and which he thought would cover costs through his and his wife's death. Mr. Foos, who said he is exploring legal action, regrets not asking enough questions about risks when he bought the policy. He said Transamerica should "bite the bullet." Drawing from his years of running a business, he said, "when you have a sale that you lose money on, you don't go to the customer and say, 'Give me some more money.' You generally figure out how to live with your problem and go on . . . You tighten your belt." Speaking generally, a Transamerica spokesman said the insurer's increases leave costs "at or below the maximum rates allowable" by contract. Life insurers have been among the companies hardest hit by the Fed's policies, which have been mirrored by many central banks around the world. These firms earn much of their profit by investing customers' premiums in bonds until claims come due. Shares of big U.S. life insurers have dropped 5.4% since the start of 2008 through Aug.31, according to the S&P Composite 1500 Life & Health Insurance Index, compared with a 48% gain for the S&P 500. At issue are "universal life" policies. In short, the policies combine a death benefit with a tax-advantaged savings account that has a minimum interest rate. Such policies accounted for more than a quarter of all individual life-insurance sales in some years past. Millions of Americans own them. Insurers' problem is that many older policies guarantee annual interest rates of 4% to 5%. In the mid-1980s, when universal life policies surged in popularity, the average investment portfolio yield for life insurers was nearly 10%, according to ratings firm A.M. Best Co. Today, that yield is just under 5%, thanks to a general decline in rates over the decades, followed by the more recent sharp leg down. In selling universal life, insurers typically aim to earn 1 to 2 percentage points more on the premiums they invest than they pay out in interest to policyholders, said Deloitte Consulting LLP principal Matthew Clark. Most insurers aren't earning this spread today, and "with continued low rates some could face a situation where they are paying out more to policyholders than their investments earn," he said. The lawsuits argue the policies are profitable enough even with shrunken investment yields. They also contend the insurance industry is raising rates to force consumers to cancel policies, thus reducing insurers' future payouts. Of the triple-digit-percentage increases, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, a lawyer suing Banner, said "there is no way they could have missed the mark that bad." In court filings, Banner asserts that plaintiffs' lawyers are using "entirely unrelated legal controversies . . . to muddy the waters in a relatively straightforward case." Also at issue in the lawsuits is "mortality" experience. In setting initial policy charges, actuaries make assumptions about the life expectancy of people who will buy the policies. The lawsuits maintain that the insurers have profited from rising life expectancies across the U.S. population, and that is among reasons they said cost increases shouldn't be allowed. In general, if an insurer ends up with customers who live longer than its actuaries anticipated, it can earn bigger profits because it collects more years of premium than anticipated before having to pay death benefits. Between the investment shortfalls and better-than-expected life expectancies, "the policies are still profitable" on an industry wide basis, said McKinsey & Co. senior partner Giambattista Taglioni. But experience varies across companies. "Some blocks of business are already underwater, and some others have reduced profitability but are still profitable." At least two cost-increase cases involving universal life were settled out of court in recent years, said James S. Bainbridge, an attorney who follows litigation for the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, a lobbying group for insurance professionals. BISCO INC: Court Accepts $3,600 Deposit, Nixes Fulton Dental Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant's motion to deposit funds in the case captioned, FULTON DENTAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BISCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15 C 11038 (N.D. Ill.). Fulton Dental, LLC filed a class action complaint, alleging that Bisco, Inc. sent it unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fulton Dental seeks statutory, injunctive, and declaratory relief for both itself and for members of the proposed class. Fulton Dental seeks to represent two classes: an "unsolicited advertisement class" of plaintiffs who received unsolicited faxes from December 8, 2011 (four years before the complaint was filed) to the date of class certification, and an "opt out notice class" of all plaintiffs who received, during the same time period, unsolicited faxes that did not contain an opt-out notice. Bisco made a settlement offer of $3,005 plus costs, which Fulton Dental rejected on January 24. The next day, Bisco moved to deposit $3,600 with the District Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. Bisco's position is that this amount exceeds what Fulton Dental could ever hope to recover in this action, because it assumes maximum liability: $3,005 for two willful violations of the TCPA -- one for sending an unwanted junk fax, and one for failing to include an opt-out notice and $595 to cover costs. Bisco also asks the Court to enter judgment in Fulton Dental's favor for $3,005, to enjoin Bisco from further activity that violates the TCPA, and to direct Futon to file a bill of costs. In its brief, Bisco argued that the deposit, if allowed, would moot the entire case. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xulcr2 from Leagle.com, Judge Chang held that Rule 67 permits the deposit because the deposit fits within the plain language of the rule, which allows deposits of "all or part of the money or thing" if "any part of the relief sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of money." As a result of the deposit, Fulton Dental's individual and class claims will be moot, and the entire case will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). Bisco was directed to deposit the funds by September 7, 2016. Fulton Dental, LLC is represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC Fulton Dental, LLC is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (800) 331-5763 -- and -- Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 333 N. Michigan Ave #1126 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel:(312)704-8080 -- and -- Matthew Mccue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW MCCUE 1 South Ave, Natick, MA 01760 Tel:(508)655-1415 Bisco, Inc. is represented by Jeffrey J. Halldin, Esq. -- jhalldin@harrisonheld.com -- andJohn M. Heaphy, Esq. -- jheaphy@harrisonheld.com -- HARRISON & HELD CALIFORNIA: "Marchetti" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the Kathleen Marchetti's first amended complaint in the case captioned KATHLEEN MARCHETTI, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05523-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Marchetti brought a putative class action against the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco and the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court (together the "Superior Court"), the California Judicial Council, Tim Guinasso (a court clerk), Jeannette Santos (Guinasso's supervisor), and AllianceOne Debt Collections (an entity that collects fines for the Superior Court), alleging a violation of her constitutional right to due process and seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and California Civil Code section 52.1. Marchetti's complaint stemmed from the suspension of her driver's license and her payment of an approximately $595 fine after she failed to appear in traffic court by the date indicated on her citation for her vehicle's outdated registration. Judge Orrick previously granted the defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend on June 9, 2016 for the following reasons: -- Marchetti's claims do not appear to be cognizable in federal court. -- If what Marchetti seeks is to set aside her failure to appear in Superior Court, she is barred from doing so by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. -- If Marchetti's complaint is read as encompassing a broader challenge to the entire process she has been afforded, she has failed to state a claim for a proper due process violation. -- The state-affiliated defendants are protected under either the Eleventh Amendment or judicial immunity. -- Because Marchetti has not established a violation of either her constitutional or statutory rights, her California Civil Code section 52.1 claim and her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief also fail. On June 29, 2016, Marchetti filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging the same violations, facts and claims as in the initial complaint and adding Jean Shiomoto (director of the DMV) as a defendant. Judge Orrick found that Marchetti was not able to resolve the deficiencies in her complaint in her amended complaint, and did not identify any additional facts that could be added to an amended complaint. Thus, the judge again granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, this time, without leave to amend. A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's September 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/pMrFMw from Leagle.com. Kathleen Marchetti, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Dale Murray, Murray & Associates. Superior Court of California, Clerk of the Superior Court of California, The California Judicial Council, Tim Lnu, Clerk of the Superior Court, Jeannette Lnu, Clerk of the Superior Court, Defendants, represented by Christopher Sean Patterson -- sean.patterson@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP & Michael Louis Fox -- michael.fox@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP. Alliance One, Defendant, represented by Pamela Madeliene Ferguson -- pamela.ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Mark Francis Ram, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP. State of California, Jean Shiomoto, Defendants, represented by Raymond W. Hamilton, Attorney General's Office of CA. CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Green" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GINA GREEN, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Domestic Corporation, and DIXON HUGHES GOODMAN, LLP, a North Carolina Limited Liability Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-00785-UNA (D. Del., September 7, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION is one of the nation's largest full-service providers of consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, mortgage and insurance products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Sensor, Esq. TYBOUT, REDFEARN & PELL 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 658-6901 Fax: (302) 658-4018 E-mail: msensor@trplaw.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com CLeach@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com CARING HEART: Faces "Conteh" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Salfu Conteh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 421 Timber Lake Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082, Plaintiff v. Caring Heart Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., 6445 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19119, Case No. 2:16-cv-04822- MSG (E.D. Pa., September 7, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. CHADBOURNE & PARKE: 14 Female Partners Won't Join Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Vivia Chen, writing for The Careerist, reports that the gender discrimination suit against Chadbourne & Parke is getting hotter. Now it looks like the other female partners at the firm are ganging up on Kerrie Campbell, the woman who's suing the firm. I hate to say it, but it's beginning to look like a Big Law episode of "Mean Girls." Last month, Chadbourne partner Campbell filed a $100 million class action suit against the firm, alleging that female lawyers are compensated less than their male colleagues, even when women generate more business, and that the firm retaliates against women who raise the issue. In response, the firm disputed Ms. Campbell's claims, issuing a statement that her complaint was "riddled with falsehoods." So far, pretty standard public relations stuff from a company or firm in this kind of case. Now the latest salvo: As first reported on Sept. 12 by The Wall Street Journal, 14 of the firm's 16 female partners sent a letter to Ms. Campbell's lawyer, David Sanford, with this message: Bug off. Essentially, the 14 signers say they want nothing to do with the class action. (Ms. Campbell is one of the two lawyers who didn't sign; the other partner is traveling on a charitable trip in the "developing world," according to a source close to the firm.) But the letter is more than a "Thanks-but-no-thanks" message. It seems to convey the idea that the female partners at Chadbourne are doing fine and need no help. In fact, it turns the tables on Ms. Campbell by suggesting that it's her lawyer who's the chauvinist. The first paragraph of the letter states: "Your complaint claims that it must speak for us because we are too afraid to speak for ourselves. That is not how we see ourselves and certainly not how any of us believes our clients and colleagues perceive us." The women write that they were not contacted by Mr. Sanford before they were swept into the class -- a tactic they claim "is no less patronizing and patriarchal than what you accuse our male colleagues of having done." The letter then goes on to say that Mr. Sanford's complaint "makes a group of very accomplished, assertive and intelligent professional women look like they are victims unable to hold their own with their male colleagues." I don't know the protocol for contacting potential class members, but it seems strange that Ms. Campbell's lawyer would be called "patronizing and patriarchal" for taking a plaintiff with claims like hers. Though the letter is addressed to Mr. Sanford, it's hard to read it as anything but a rebuke of Campbell's claims. It reminds me of the long list of women who quickly rose to Roger Ailes' defense when he was accused of sexual harassment and retaliation by Gretchen Carlson. Funny thing, though, when the evidence started to mount against Mr. Ailes, some of his defenders went quiet, and one very vocal supporter (Greta Van Susteren) later accused Fox of failing to control Mr. Ailes. If the aim of the letter is to make Ms. Campbell's claims less credible, I'm not sure it's doing the trick. Though it's possible that the 14 signers feel they have been treated fairly by the firm, it's also possible that peer pressure led some to sign the letter. The letter didn't begin with a single person, says the source that's close to Chadbourne. It was started in a small group, according to the source, then leaked to The Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Mr. Sanford says, "I've been contacted by a number of Chadbourne partners and associates." Current ones? "I cannot speak about the particulars of people who contacted us," Mr. Sanford tells me. Everyone is being coy. You just know this will get juicier. CINEMARK: Judge Tosses Aurora Shooting Survivors' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Deutschmann, writing for Inquisitr, reports that four survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting were ordered to pay Cinemark $700,000 in legal fees after their class-action lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. As reported by NY Daily News, the survivors believe the theater is partially responsible for the massacre. As stated in the lawsuit, Cinemark's security team failed to prevent James Holmes from leaving the theater through an emergency exit and returning with a cache of deadly weapons. However, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson disagreed. A federal judge formally dismissed the class-action lawsuit and ordered four survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting to pay Cinemark $700,000 to cover the cost of their defense. On July 19, 2012, an estimated 400 people, including 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, entered the Aurora's Century 16 multiplex theater for the midnight premiere of the highly-anticipated Batman sequel "The Dark Knight Rises." Approximately 20 minutes into the film, Mr. Holmes left the Cinemark theater through an emergency exit, propping the door open behind him. He then changed into riot gear, retrieved a cache of deadly weapons, and re-entered the theater. Because members of the audience dressed up for the premiere, Mr. Holmes' riot gear was initially mistaken for an elaborate costume. When he activated two gas canisters, some audience members thought it was part of the special effects. Unfortunately, it was soon clear that Mr. Holmes meant to harm as many people as possible. In addition to deploying the poisonous gas, he began opening fire. As reported by ABC 7, nearly 70 people were injured and 12 others were killed in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting. Less than an hour after the movie began, Mr. Holmes was identified as the sole suspect in the Cinemark theater massacre and was taken into custody without further incident. Authorities confirmed he had numerous weapons in his possession, including a.223 caliber Smith & Wesson assault rifle, a Remington 12 gauge shotgun, and a.40 Glock handgun. According to reports, Mr. Holmes openly confessed to planning and carrying out the Aurora, Colorado, shooting. Mr. Holmes was subsequently charged with numerous criminal counts, including first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. On July 16, 2015, he was convicted of one count of possessing illegal explosives, 140 counts of attempted murder, and 24 counts of first-degree murder. Although he was facing the death penalty, jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision. As a result, the convicted killer was sentenced to 12 life sentences without the possibility of parole. Forty-one survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting eventually joined to file a class-action lawsuit against Cinemark. However, as the case progressed, it was clear that proving the theater was responsible for the massacre would be nearly impossible. Although 37 of the plaintiffs ultimately walked away from the case, four of the survivors refused to back down. Los Angeles Times reports the Judge eventually ruled against the plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit against Cinemark. However, the company already spent more than $700,000 on their defense. Therefore, they asked the judge to order the four remaining plaintiffs to cover their legal fees. According to reports, the federal judge did, in fact, order the four remaining plaintiffs to pay Cinemark's legal fees. The Aurora, Colorado, shooting survivors are now collectively responsible for more than $700,000. Although he was initially housed in the Colorado State Penitentiary in Canon City, Mr. Holmes was transferred to another facility after he was physically assaulted by another inmate. As reported by ABC News, officials have confirmed he was moved out of Colorado. However, they have not disclosed the inmate's current location. The Aurora, Colorado, shooting victims said they are disappointed with the judge's decision in their class-action lawsuit. However, they hope the case encouraged Cinemark and other movie theater owners to increase security measures to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit styled John Hernandez, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cryogenic Transportation, LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1612524, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01898 to the proceeding. Cryogenic Transportation is a leader in Kenan Advantage Group's Merchant Gas Subsidiaries when it comes to transporting industrial gases. The Plaintiff appears pro se. DALLAS CENTRAL: Trinity Square Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------- TRINITY SQUARE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11139 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. Around May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Long, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731 6758 Facsimile: (469) 854 3336 DALLAS CENTRAL: RMB Richardson Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------- RMB RICHARDSON COMMERCE CENTRE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11146 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. Around May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Long, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731 6758 Facsimile: (469) 854 3336 DALLAS CENTRAL: Skyline Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------------ SKYLINE REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11154 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. Around May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Long, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731 6758 Facsimile: (469) 854 3336 DALLAS CENTRAL: South Tollway Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- SOUTH TOLLWAY 3920, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11135 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. 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@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Trails Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------------- TRAILS REDEVELOPMENT, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11161 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. Around May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Long, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731 6758 Facsimile: (469) 854 3336 DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MAKENNA BANKS, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; DAVE & BUSTER'S HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC., a Missouri corporation; and DAVE & BUSTER'S OF OREGON, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01754-YY (D. Ore., September 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. -- http://ir.daveandbusters.com/-- owns and operates entertainment and dining venues for adults and families in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Phone: (503) 697-3427 Fax: (866) 311-5629 E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Arledge" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Arledge, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC, Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC, TJK-ELS, Inc., TJK-ELS West End, Inc., Christopher T. Koehler, and Edward T. Schlater, Jr. Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00386-WHR (S.D. Ohio, September 8, 2016), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' alleged willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Constitution. Domino's Pizza, Inc. operates a pizza delivery chain in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Eric Kmetz, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 604-8759 Fax: (614) 583-8107 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com ekmetz@msdlegal.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: (614) 983-0361 Fax: (614) 448-9408 E-mail: andrew@kimblelawoffice.com ENERVEST OPERATING: "Mojave" Suit Moved to N.D. of Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit captioned Mojave Oil & Gas, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Enervest Operating, L.L.C., Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIB, L.P., and Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIC, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. CJ-16-02844, was removed from the Tulsa Cty. Dist. Ct., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00582-JHP-FHM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. James H Payne. Enervest Operating is an oil and gas company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph C Woltz, Esq. Robert Neil Lawrence, Esq. Terry Joe Barker, Esq. PEZOLD BARKER & WOLTZ 2431 E 61ST ST STE 200 TULSA, OK 74136-1242 Telephone: (918) 584 0506 Facsimile: (918) 584 0720 E-mail: jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com Rlawrence@pbwtulsa.com tbarker@pbwtulsa.com The Defendants ARE represented by: Mark D Christiansen, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT 211 N Robinson 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 552 2235 Facsimile: (405) 228 7435 E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com - and - Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq. Michael Franklin Smith, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT (TULSA) Two W Second St Ste 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 587 0000 Facsimile: (918) 599 9317 E-mail: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: E.D. Mo. Court Won't Hear "Fisher" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned KEANA FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15CV00372 AGF (E.D. Mo.). The putative class action brought by Keana Fisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims that the defendants, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., and a related entity, violated the FCRA through its process of obtaining consumer reports regarding prospective employees. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Fisher does not have standing because she failed to plead facts demonstrating that she has suffered a particularized and concrete injury. In support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendants rely on the recent decision by the Supreme Court, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) ("Spokeo"), for the proposition that Plaintiff has not pleaded a "concrete injury," and therefore, has no standing to bring this case. Plaintiff responds that violations of her rights to privacy and to receiving information in the manner prescribed by the FCRA are "concrete" injuries under Spokeo. Plaintiff refers the Court to a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit applying Spokeo to a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15- 15708, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016). In Church, the Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff who sued a debt collector for failure to include statutorily-required disclosures in a collection letter (such as that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose) had standing to bring her claims, because failing to receive information which she was statutorily entitled to receive was a concrete injury "that Congress has elevated to the status of a legally cognizable injury through the FDCPA." The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff did not allege a "bare procedural violation," but rather that "Congress provided [Plaintiff] with a substantive right to receive certain disclosures and [Plaintiff] has alleged that [Defendant] violated that substantive right. Id. *4 n.2; see also Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 15 C 10446, 2016 WL 3671467, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016) ("The information-access cases cited by Spokeo suggest that, in this case, [Plaintiff] has alleged a sufficiently concrete injury because he alleges that [Defendant] denied him the right to information due to him under the FDCPA.") Church is distinguishable from the present case, not only because it involves a different statute, but because the nature of the statutory violation is different. In Church, the plaintiff alleged that she did not receive certain information she was entitled to receive, whereas in Fisher, all Plaintiff alleges is that the format and conspicuousness of a disclosure did not comply with the statute at issue. The Court believes that under these circumstances, the statutory violation alleged by Plaintiff does not establish her standing to bring this action. Another post-Spokeo case relied upon by Plaintiff, Hawkins v. S2Verify, No. C 15-03502 WHA, 2016 WL 3999458 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2016), is also unavailing. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant consumer reporting agency violated the FCRA by listing in a consumer report about him that was "sent . . . into the world" his prior convictions that were older than seven years, something the FCRA prohibits. The district court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the concreteness requirement for standing as the defendant had disclosed records of convictions "that Congress has protected from disclosure, thereby intruding upon the plaintiff's privacy interest." The situation in Fisher is quite different, the Court said. For similar reasons, the other cases cited by Plaintiff are of no avail to her. Judge Fleissig found that Fisher has failed to plead facts demonstrating that she has suffered any injury in fact. Therefore, the judge concluded that Fisher lacks standing to bring her federal claims. Judge Fleissig also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fisher's state law claim. Plaintiff's state claim is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's September 7, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/RWoq03 from Leagle.com. Keana Fisher, individually, and on behalf of of All Others Similarly Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher Wehrle, WEHRLE LAW LLC. Keana Fisher, individually, and on behalf of of All Others Similarly Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY AND PRONGAY LLP & Mark S. Greenstone -- mgreenston@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY AND PRONGAY LLP. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, Defendants, represented by Daniel M. O'Keefe -- dmokeefe@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Amanda E. Colvin -- amanda.colvin@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP. EVOQUA WATER: "Massa" Suit Removed from Cty. Ct. to M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit titled Montana Massa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-004973-CI, was removed from the Pinellas County Ct. to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02585-SDM-AAS to the proceeding. The assigned judge is Steven D. Merryday. Evoqua Water designs, develops, and manufactures water and wastewater treatment products/systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 N Franklin St Fl 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 223 5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsoffin@forthepeople.com - and - The Defendant is represented by: Anthony J. Hall, Esq. Kimberly J. Doud, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 111 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1250 Orlando, FL 32801-2366 Telephone: (407) 393 2900 Facsimile: (407) 393 2929 E-mail: ajhall@littler.com kdoud@littler.com EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "Moore" Suit in District of Utah --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Express Recovery Services. The case is captioned Mitchell Moore and Antonia Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Express Recovery Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00126- EJF (D. Utah, Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Evelyn J. Furse. Express Recovery Services is a collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theron D. Morrison, Esq. 290 25th St Ogden, UT 84401 Telephone: (801) 392-9324 E-mail: therondmorrison@gmail.com GREENWISE ORGANIC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated plaintiffs known and unknown, Plaintiff v. GREENWISE ORGANIC LAWN CARE LLC AND MARC EDWARD WISE individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-08598 (N.D. Ill., September 1, 2016), was filed under under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to- Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Defendant, GREENWISE ORGANIC LAWN CARE LLC provides landscaping, gardening, snowplowing, and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 784-3541 HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Filed Exhibit to Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Jose Luis Garnica and Cora Potter, individuals; on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-05243-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs advised the Court that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel contained an incomplete exhibit, and filed a full and complete exhibit. A copy of the Notice of Errata is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y7bTRjm4 A hearing on the Class Certification Motion is set for Nov. 17 at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Patricia K. Oliver, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949 2595 Facsimile: (661) 949 7524 E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com awheeler@rrexparris.com poliver@rrexparris.com - and - Don Howarth, Esq. Suzelle M. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Esq. HOWARTH & SMITH 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728 Los Angeles, CA, 90014 Telephone: (213) 955 9400 Facsimile: (213) 622 0791 E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com ssmith@howarth-smith.com eanthony@howarth-smith.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Jeremy Robinson, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238 1811 Facsimile: (619) 544 9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com jrobinson@cglaw.com HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Fix CR-V Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Wisconsin couple have brought a federal class action against Honda, alleging the automaker should be made to pay for selling CR-V automobiles it knew would intermittently reek of gasoline inside the passenger cabin, and for doing nothing to fix the problem, even after receiving potentially thousands of complaints from owners of the compact sport utility vehicle. On Aug. 31, plaintiffs Bruce and Leean Beehler, of Fox Point, Wis., filed suit in Chicago federal court, alleging the company had violated federal law in not honoring the customers' requests to fix the problem under the terms of the warranty they received with the auto when they purchased it. According to the complaint, the Beehler's purchased their new Honda CR-V in January 2016. Within days, the complaint said, the passenger cabin "smelled like an open pool of gasoline" and the smell persisted no matter how they drove the vehicle. Over the next few weeks, the smell would come and go, the complaint said, ultimately prompting them to take the vehicle in to a Milwaukee-area Honda dealership in March for service to remedy the problem. At the dealership, an employee allegedly told the Beehlers that Honda "was aware of the odor problem from similar complaints by other customers who had purchased or leased the 2016 CR-V and did not have a solution." The Beehlers alleged they returned to the dealership to seek service for the problem five more times from April-August, and each time received no assistance from Honda to fix the problem. Most recently, Honda allegedly instructed them to try purchasing their fuel from "a top tier gas station." When they received the list of such "top tier" brands, the Beehlers said they represented the brands from which they had purchased the fuel consistently. The Beehlers alleged Honda repeatedly acknowledged it was aware of the problem, yet did nothing to remedy the presence of the fumes, which, whether it may arise from fuel or other sources within the vehicle, represents dangers to human health. "Honda claims the 2016 CR-V 'feels like home' and invites customers to 'sit back and enjoy the ride,'" the lawsuit said. "The 2016 Honda CR-V does not feel like home because it reeks of gasoline. Plaintiffs and Class members cannot sit back and enjoy the ride when they are enveloped with harmful fumes." The plaintiffs said they believe the lawsuit should be certified as a class action, which could include thousands of others from throughout the U.S. They have requested unspecified damages, including money to compensate them for "out-of-pocket expenses and costs they have incurred in attempting to rectify the horrible, noxious, odor in their vehicles," plus attorney fees. "Such expenses and losses will continue as Plaintiffs and Class members must take time off from work and, pay for rental cars or other transportation arrangements, child care, and the myriad expenses involved in going through the recall process," the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Daniel J. Voelker and Alexander N. Loftus, of the Voelker Litigation Group, of Chicago. IDENTIV INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rok" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a California court has granted the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. An amended complaint was filed on Sept. 12. The Company said, "On December 16, 2015, we and certain of our present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson." "On June 6, 2016, each of us, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the court granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint." IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Sent to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JHARED EKRYSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IGNITE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-6742 CJS (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. On December 11, 2015, the plaintiffs commenced the action, asserting "tip credit" claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the minimum-wage statutes of New York, Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan and Virginia. The plaintiffs sought to recover alleged unpaid wages from December 11, 2012, onward. On March 24, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, contending that the Dispute Resolution Program cited in their employment guidelines constitutes a binding agreement between the parties under Texas law, and that the plaintiffs' claims fall under the purview of the Dispute Resolution Program, requiring that this action be dismissed. The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants' motion must be denied because under the law of Texas, the Dispute Resolution Program is not a binding agreement because it is "illusory." Judge Siragusa found that the Dispute Resolution Program is "a contract that exists independently of the employee handbook," and that Macaroni Grill did not reserve the right to amend or abolish the arbitration agreement, retroactively or otherwise. Consequently, the judge concluded that the Dispute Resolution Program is not illusory, and constitutes an enforceable arbitration agreement. A full-text copy of Judge Siragusa's September 7, 2016 decision and order is available at https://is.gd/xCnFtY from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by Jared Kimball Cook, Esq., and Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq. -- jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com -- Thomas & Solomon LLP. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., Raymond A. Blanchette, III, Romano's Macaroni Grill, Inc, Kevin Cottingim, Rodney Morris, John Gilbert, Mac Parent, LLC, Redrock Partners, LLC, Dean Riesen, Defendants, represented by Eric R. Magnus -- magnuse@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice, Justin R. Barnes -- barnesjr@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice, Stephanie L. Goutos -- stephanie.goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & William J. Anthony -- william.anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP. INNERWORKINGS INC: Settlement in "Van Noppen" Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Innerworkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al., have reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement remains subject to court approval. In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of its intention to revise certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative. On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to final Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final release, and includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company's insurance carrier. No further updates were provided in the Company's report. INTERNET TECHNOLOGY: Faces Daisy Inc. Suit in M.D. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Internet Technology Architecture and Development LLC. The case is entitled Daisy, Inc., a Florida corporation individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Internet Technology Architecture and Development LLC and John Does 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00689-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. John E. Steele. Internet Technology is a software consulting company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com IPAYMENT INC: Faces "Bickelmann" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- BELINDA BICKELMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. IPAYMENT, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-06734 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. IPAYMENT, INC. is a company in the business of providing payment processing services to businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Blackwell" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBY BLACKWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03249-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., September 7, 2016), is a putative class action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. -- http://www.ittesi.com/-- provides technology-oriented undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 314-833-4826 Email: bwise@prwlegal.com plesko@prwlegal.com ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Artis" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ARTIS, DONNA A. LINDSAY and PATRICIA MARSHALL, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00790-UNA (D. Del., September 7, 2016), seeks recovery for damages in the amount equivalent to 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits by reason of Defendant's violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. -- http://www.ittesi.com/-- provides technology-oriented undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP Sally E. Veghte, Esq. 919 Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 552-5503 Fax: (302) 426-9193 E-mail: sveghte@klehr.com - and - Charles A. Ercole, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 569-2700 Fax: (215) 568-6603 E-mail: cercole@klehr.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Sale of Baby Powder --------------------------------------------------------------- SHINTELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 00590-JJB-RLB (M.D. La., September 7, 2016), raises claims arising from the direct and proximate result of Defendants' and/or their corporate predecessors' negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. JOHNSON & JOHNSON -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is a three-sector health care company based out of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. Lanson Bordelon, Esq. David Scalia, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 KBK SERVICES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Ricard" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Peterson decertified the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class in the case captioned ANDREW RICARD and TIM MACKAY, Plaintiffs, v. KBK SERVICES, INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-299-jdp (W.D. Wis.). The judge also granted KBK Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs'. Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay worked in construction for KBK. They sued KBK for underpayment of wages on behalf of a class, alleging violations of the FLSA and Wisconsin law. Both the FLSA collective action and the class action were previously certified, but KBK moved the court to reconsider those certifications. On reconsideration, Judge Peterson decertified the FLSA collective action because the named plaintiffs are the only two members of that action. The judge also decertified the Rule 23 class because the plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the class. Both sides also moved for summary judgment on the merits. Judge Peterson granted KBK's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs'. The judge held that the plaintiffs' travel to the KBK job sites is ordinary home-to-work travel and not compensable. A full-text copy of Judge Peterson's September 7, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/0dXlgb from Leagle.com. Andrew Ricard, Tim Mackay, United Association Local 434, Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho, Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C.. KBK Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brittany L. Lopez Naleid -- bnaleid@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., John H. Zawadsky -- jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC & Robert S. Driscoll -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Holmes" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- TRACIE HOLMES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, 2:16-cv-13164-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 1, 2016), alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants Kelly Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, offer a comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well as staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire, and direct-hire basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Products Liability Case Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a Harley-Davidson worker whose leg was crushed by a lift table will have a second chance to prove that the table was defectively designed, thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's products liability ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex. Harold DeJesus' case against lift table manufacturer Knight Industries & Associates was originally dismissed, based on strict liability design-defect standards in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Mr. DeJesus claimed the lift table was defective because it didn't have warning lights or alarms. But while his appeal was pending, the high court in Pennsylvania came down with its seminal ruling in Tincher. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal, given the new test for determining whether a product is defective. Now, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gerald J. Pappert has denied Knight's request to again toss the case. Knight argued that Tincher didn't change the fact that Mr. DeJesus lacked evidence in his defect claim under either test, while Mr. DeJesus argued that the question was best resolved by a jury. Judge Pappert wrote in his opinion that Mr. DeJesus' case still had issues of fact to sort out, especially when his claims were viewed under Tincher's risk utility test -- a mechanism that determines if a product is defective based on whether the probability and seriousness of harm it could cause outweighs the precautions taken. "There are sufficient issues of fact as to whether the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the lift table outweighed the burden and cost of installing visual or audio alarms," Judge Pappert said. He added, "On these facts, reasonable minds can disagree over whether the added safety that these audio and visual alarms provide warrants shifting the extra cost of installation onto Knight. Whether the cost of these safety features is reasonable in light of the reduced risk is accordingly an issue best left to the jury." Judge Pappert also said the facts could support a claim that the table falling on Mr. DeJesus' leg was the proximate cause of his injuries. "There are sufficient facts on this record to suggest that the product defect--the absence of audio and visual warnings on the lift table--proximately caused Mr. DeJesus's injuries. To defeat causation, Knight would have to demonstrate that the accident was solely attributable to a supervening cause," Judge Pappert said. Mr. DeJesus' attorney, Peter Patton, did not return a call for comment. Knight's attorney, Anthony Sherr, did not return a call seeking comment. KOCH FOODS: Faces "Gross" Antitrust Lawsuit Over Broiler Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- John Gross and Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Koch Meats Co., Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation, George's, Inc., George's Farms, Inc., O.K. Foods, Inc., O.K. Farms, Inc., and O.K. Industries, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08737 (N.D. Ill., September 7, 2016), was filed on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased Broilers directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2008 until the Present. The Plaintiff brings this action for treble damages under the antitrust laws of the United States against Defendants, and demands a trial by jury. Koch Foods, Inc. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is one of the largest poultry processors in the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Hart, Esq. Brian Eldridge, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE 121 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 955-0545 Fax: (312) 971-9243 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com kpozan@hmelegal.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Michael J. Freed, Esq. Steven A. Kanner, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Fax: (224) 632-4519 E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com skanner@fklmlaw.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-9000 Fax: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asheanin@pswlaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 92403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Fax: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. Jill Manning, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 743-2808 Fax: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com jmanning@steyerlaw.com - and - Kevin B. Love, Esq. Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (305) 357-9000 Fax: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Devon P. Allard, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dpa@millerlawpc.com - and - Whitney Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 610 16th Street, Suite 214 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 968-1852 Fax: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Fax: (716) 332-0336 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Defending "Garfield" Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Limbach Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a 1347 Capital Corp.) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case by Robert Garfield. On May 10, 2016, Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public holders of Company's common stock, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Complaint") against the Company, Gordon G. Pratt, Hassan R. Baqar, Larry G. Swets, Jr., John T. Fitzgerald, Joshua Horowitz, Leo Christopher Saenger III, and Thomas D. Sargent (the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois. In his Complaint, Mr. Garfield alleges that (1) the Defendants' efforts to consummate the Business Combination are "ultra vires" acts in violation of the Company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation (the "Charter") because the Charter required Company to liquidate if it had not entered into a letter of intent or definitive agreement to consummate an initial business combination by January 21, 2016, and the letter of intent with Limbach was not entered into until January 29, 2016, (2) the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in negotiating and approving the merger because, among other things, they had conflicts of interest resulting from their ownership of insider shares, and (3) the Defendants filed a proxy statement that was incomplete and misleading because, among other things, the proxy statement does not disclose certain conflicts of interest and the violation of Company's Charter. The Complaint therefore seeks (a) a determination that the action is a proper class action and that Mr. Garfield is a proper class representative; (b) a determination that the action is a proper derivative action; (c) a declaration that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties; (d) a declaration that the merger agreement is void because it is ultra vires; (e) injunctive relief enjoining the merger and, if consummated, rescinding the merger; (f) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (g) an award of costs and attorney's fees. The Defendants intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and believe that the Complaint is without merit because, among other things, the Company entered into a letter of intent prior to January 21, 2016 with a potential target for a business combination (other than Limbach) which the Company was unable to consummate, thereby extending its deadline for completing a business combination to July 21, 2016, the Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, and the proxy statement is not incomplete and misleading. LINC ENERGY: Queensland Gov't May Face Liability for Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isobel Roe, writing for ABC News, reports that the Queensland Government could be liable for a $150 million class action by farmers after an underground coal gasification (UCG) project allegedly caused serious environmental damage. Farmer Pamela Bender leads the class action of about 50 landholders, in an area spanning 90,000 hectares. Linc Energy allegedly damaged farmland near its UCG trial at Hopeland on Queensland's Darling Downs. The company was committed to stand trial on five environmental charges but had since been placed in liquidation. The Supreme Court on Aug. 31 ordered Linc Energy's liquidators to hand over its insurance policy documents to Ms Bender's lawyers so it could be determined whether the class action was viable. Solicitor Tom Marland said it was "more than likely" Linc Energy's insurance policy would not cover the claim. "If we're unable to find any fruit in relation to the insurance policies, we'll just endeavor to continue our action against the State Government," he said. "We haven't formally notified the State Government, but they're certainly aware of it." He said the State Government was equally, if not more, liable for the alleged damage. "I am a taxpayer so I'm very concerned about it," he said. "But I'm also concerned about the probity of the State Government granting licenses and not requiring that the conditions be complied and met with. "I don't think there'd be too many taxpayers who would deny the people of Hopeland for the hardship they've been forced to endure." A report commissioned by the Queensland Government found Linc had caused "widespread" and in some areas "irreversible" damage to arable farmland. Ms. Bender's husband, George, took his life last year after fighting the gas industry about mining projects on and around his property. At the time, the Bender family said George had died "from a broken heart" after fighting with some companies over coal seam gas mining on his property. Their property Valencia is inside a 320-kilometre excavation caution zone set up around the Linc trial site in 2015. Ms. Bender and her daughter Helen Bender remain outspoken objectors to the coal seam gas and UCG industry. Helen Bender said the Supreme Court decision to grant her mother the insurance policy was a step towards commencing the group action. "This is the farm we've had since 1940 and you can't just walk away," she said. "There's too much Bender blood, sweat and tears in this property." The Queensland Government banned UCG activity earlier this year. LOWE'S COS: Faces "Foster" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Law ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL FOSTER and RONALD BOUCHARD, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and NILOY INC. d/b/a DCT SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv- 00161-RLV-DCK (W.D.N.C., September 8, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. is a national hardware chain. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 Web site: http://www.stephanzouras.com LLOYDS TSB BANK: Can't Compel Plaintiffs to Present Trial Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Alan C. Kay of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied Defendant's motion to compel plaintiffs to present a trial plan in the case captioned, BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and DOES 1-15, Defendants, Civ. No. 13- 00508 ACK-RLP (D. Haw.). The case involves the issuance by Lloyds TSB Bank PLC of certain dual currency loans, also referred to as International Mortgage System (IMS) loans. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC names Frank Dominick, Michele Sherie Dominick, and Bradley Willcox as class representatives and brings claims against Lloyds for Breach of Contract (Count I) and Breach of an Implied Term Limiting Lloyds' Discretion to Change the Interest Rate (Count II). On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. After briefing and oral argument from the parties, Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued his Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (F&R) on November 12, 2015. On January 8, 2016, the Court issued an Order adopting in part, rejecting in part, and modifying in part the Findings and Recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court adopted the F&R over Lloyds' objections, except as to the class definition, which the Court modified to include only plaintiffs of United States and Canadian citizenship. On July 13, 2016, Lloyds filed the instant motion asking the Court to issue an order requiring Plaintiffs to present a trial plan illustrating the expected course of proceedings at trial and showing that the requirements for maintaining this case as a class action under Rule 23 are met. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Lloyds' Motion on July 29, 2016 and Lloyds filed a Reply in support of its Motion on August 5, 2016. In his Order dated August 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/jIl5zJ from Leagle.com, Judge Kay declined to require Plaintiffs to provide further information in a trial plan regarding the Dominicks' role in the class or at trial because the witness disclosures Plaintiffs will be required to make pursuant to the Court's scheduling oder will already contain a summary of the substance of the Dominicks' testimony, and Plaintiffs' trial brief will address any "foreseeable procedural and evidentiary issues," including any irregularities that may arise as a result of Lloyds' "unique defenses" against the Dominicks. Frank Dominick, et al. are represented by Gary Lombardo, Esq. -- glombardo@steptoe.com -- Morgan Hector, Esq. -- mhector@steptoe.com -- Stephen A. Fennell, Esq. -- sfennell@steptoe.com -- Steven J. Barber, Esq. -- sbarber@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP; Paul Alston, Esq. -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Glenn T. Melchinger, Esq. -- GMelchinger@ahfi.com -- ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC is represented by Christian K. Adams, Esq. -- CADAMS@CARLSMITH.COM -- CARLSMITH BALL LLP HONOLULU; Martha S. Sullivan, Esq. -- martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- Rebecca W. Haverstick, Esq. -- rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- Sean L. McGrane, Esq. -- sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP M&T BANK: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA -------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Allen, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. M&T Bank Corporation, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, M&T Bank Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Wilmington Funds Management Corporation, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Robert G. Wilmers, Michael P. Pinto, Mark J. Czarnecki, and John Does 1- 40, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00704 (W.D.N.Y., September 1, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Defendant M&T is a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of New York in 1969. Headquartered in Buffalo, New York, M&T has two principal banking subsidiaries, M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, National Association. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucinda Lapoff, Esq. TREVETT CRISTO 2 State Street, Suite 1000 Rochester, NY 14614 Phone: (585) 454-2181 Fax: (585) 454-4026 Email: clapoff@trevettcristo.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com mgyandoh@ktmc.com jsjohnson@ktmc.com MARRONE BIO: Sept. 22 Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled ------------------------------------------------------ Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a final fairness hearing is scheduled on September 22, 2016. On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014, September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with certain of its current and former officers and directors and others were named as defendants in putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN. On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering; (ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6, 2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the "Class Action"). In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint names certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and the Company's independent registered public accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects, including its financial statements, product revenues and system of internal controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The action includes claims for damages, fees and expenses, including an award of attorneys' and experts' fees to the putative class. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016. On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the parties deferring action pending the outcome of a mediation proceeding, and ordered the parties to provide a status update on May 4, 2016. On March 15, 2016, plaintiffs moved to amend their consolidated complaint to, among other things, assert claims on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MBII securities on the open market between August 1, 2013 and November 10, 2015. On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs, the Company, and certain director and officer defendants jointly submitted a report to the Court noting in part that on April 4, 2016, they had participated in a mediation proceeding and are currently negotiating the terms of a formal stipulation of settlement. On May 25, 2016, the parties executed a final stipulation of settlement. The stipulation provides for dismissal of the action as to the Company and the officer and director defendants, and a payment by the Company's insurers of $12.0 million to an escrow account, to be distributed upon order of the court. That same day, lead plaintiff's counsel filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 27, 2016, the Court approved Plaintiffs' motion to amend their consolidated complaint. On June 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint. At the Court's request, on June 10, 2016, the settling parties revised the stipulation and papers in support of preliminary approval to reflect the amended consolidated complaint, and on June 16, 2016, refiled for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 8, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement is subject to notice to the class and further court approval at a final fairness hearing scheduled on September 22, 2016. The Company currently anticipates that it will not incur a loss in connection with settlement of this matter in light of applicable insurance coverage. However, there can be no assurance that the Court will finally approve the settlement. In the event the Court does not grant final approval, the settlement as reflected in the stipulation of settlement may be terminated. MERCER CANYONS: Yakima Farm Workers' Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Mai Hoang, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that a lawsuit claiming grower Mercer Canyons failed to disclose information to more than 600 Yakima Valley farm workers will move forward under a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit. The decision, released on Aug. 31, affirms an earlier ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Stanley A. Bastian, who said the lawsuit filed by Bacilio Ruiz and Jose Amador can proceed as a class action. Messrs. Ruiz and Amador filed suit in 2014, alleging Mercer Canyons misled local farm workers by not disclosing information about available higher-paying vineyard jobs under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program and that those domestic workers who were hired were underpaid. When Mercer Canyons, which grows row crops and wine grapes, acquired permission from the federal government to hire foreign workers under the H-2A program, it agreed to advertise the positions to domestic workers and provide the same wage of $12 an hour. The farm workers, represented by Columbia Legal Services and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender of Seattle, said the class of more than 600 farm workers includes domestic workers who obtained jobs and were paid below that rate. Also included are potential domestic workers who were not made aware of available jobs by Mercer Canyons. Judge Bastian, in certifying class-action status, agreed with the farm workers' claims, but the final decision was to be made in a jury trial. The trial was to start last year but was delayed when Mercer Canyons appealed Judge Bastian's decision. Mercer Canyons appealed the decision on several grounds, including that several members of the class might not have been adversely affected because they would have not been hired or they may have not been seeking other non-vineyard positions at the time. The appeals court, in affirming the earlier federal court decision, disagreed. Eric D. Miller -- EMiller@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie in Seattle, who argued on behalf of Mercer Canyons in the appeals case, could not be immediately reached for comment. Although Judge Bastian agreed with the farm workers' claims, the case still needs to go to trial, said Joe Morrison, an attorney with Columbia Legal Services. "Although the judge has made some rulings on what he sees the evidence to be at this point, ultimately it's up to a jury to make that decision," he said. MIZUHO BANK: Appeal in Mt. Gox Customers' Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- NewsBTC reports that Mizuho Bank recently found itself in a legal trouble after its association with defunct Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox was recognized by a US court. The bank's name surfaced in the notorious Bitcoin theft case when some of its victims claimed that their withdrawal requests was denied by the Japanese bank. The Mt. Gox victims, on the grounds of denial of rightful requests by Mizuho, later filed a class action lawsuit against the bank. According to the lawsuit, Mizuho Bank intentionally wreaked Mt. Gox customers' right to withdraw funds in the time of the notorious hack. It therefore makes the bank equally responsible for aggravating customers' losses. In its defense, Mizuho had claimed that the US Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the case as the exchange in question was based out of Japan, and so is Mizuho Financial Group, the bank's parent company. The presiding US District Judge Gary Feinerman has rejected the bank's appeal, allowing the class action lawsuit to proceed. The bank is also reported to have mentioned that Mt Gox customers can't be considered as its customers. In response, the Judge in the court order rules that there was a transactional relationship between Mizuho and Mt Gox customers as they were allowed to send direct wire transfers to the bank account. He also states that the bank, due to its actions, will be facing charges related to unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment resulting in losses to the public. It is believed that Mizuho Bank had full knowledge about the trouble brewing in Mt Gox. But still, it continued to receive funds from customers, profiting from transaction fees associated with the deposits while limiting withdrawals. The Mt Gox fiasco, resulting from gross mismanagement and multiple hacking attempts resulted in a loss of over 650,000 bitcoins. Recently, the Japanese authorities along with Payward group, Kraken's parent company conducted a thorough investigation into the Mt Gox. A complete report is yet to be released. Kraken was also part of the process to distribute recovered bitcoin among the customers who were affected by the closure of Mt. Gox. As the lawsuit is given a go-ahead, Mizuho Bank is expected to invoke Japanese laws in the latest stages of the proceedings. NANTKWEST INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case -------------------------------------------------------------- NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in March 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947 was filed in federal district court for the Central District of California related to the Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements for the periods ending June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015. In May 2016 a similar complaint was filed, captioned Forsythe v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-03438; those two cases subsequently were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed on August 4, 2016. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and various investment banks which served as underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired the Company's securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015 through March 11, 2016. Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings. "At this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, our liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred," the Company said. NANTKWEST INC: Defending Suit Related to Initial Public Offering ---------------------------------------------------------------- NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against lawsuits related to the Company's July 28, 2015 initial public offering. In May 2016, the first of several complaints was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County also related to the Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements. Those complaints are captioned Wagner v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. BC621292, Frye v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. BC621665, Hare v. NantKwest, Inc., No. BC621836, and Wiencek v. NantKwest, Inc. et al., No. BC623233. The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the Company's initial public offering registration statement. The complaints name as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, various investment banks which served as underwriters for the Company's initial public offering, and two venture funds. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and recession or other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's July 28, 2015 initial public offering. Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings. "At this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred," the Company said. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Cal Football Players File Concussion Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hooman Yazdanian, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that a former Cal football player filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Pac-12 conference on Sept. 1 for an alleged "reckless disregard for the health and safety" of generations of Cal student-athletes suffering from concussion-related injuries. The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA and Pac-12 "breached their duties" to student-athletes by not informing them about the dangers of concussions and historically failing to implement reasonable concussion protocols for decades until 2010. "Since the inception of the Berkeley's football program, through at least 2010, there were no adequate concussion management protocols or policies of any kind in place at Berkeley to address and treat concussions sustained by student-athletes during practices or in games," the lawsuit alleges. Neville Hawkins, who played for the Cal football team from 1970 to 1971, is one of the plaintiffs in the suit. The allegations come as part of a wave of new filings related to concussion injuries in federal courts around the country. Even before this influx of lawsuits, Edelson PC -- the prosecuting law firm -- had filed 15 similar lawsuits starting in May, bringing the total number filed by the firm regarding this issue to 24. These cases are all in the process of being consolidated to be overseen by a single judge in a federal court in Chicago. Campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof said the campus could not comment on the lawsuit. In addition, Pac-12's Vice President of Communications Dave Hirsch also said the conference had no comment on the lawsuit. There could be dozens more lawsuits filed against the NCAA and its member conferences, according to Chris Dore, an attorney for Edelson PC. Additionally, schools can also be sued as defendants when they are private colleges. The lawsuit's main allegation is that the Pac-12 and the NCAA hid from the public and from their players what the lawsuit alleges is "an epidemic that was slowly killing their athletes." "As a direct result of Defendants' actions (or lack thereof), Plaintiff and a Class of former players . . . now suffer from neurological and cognitive damage, including symptoms of traumatic encephalopathy," the lawsuit alleges. Mr. Hawkins, who suffered multiple concussions as a player for Cal, suffers from early onset dementia. Mr. Dore stressed that the prosecution will look to work with the defendants to reach a settlement and avoid going to trial. "We're hopeful that the NCAA and the conferences and the schools are interested in helping these individuals sooner," Mr. Dore said. "If this stretches out for years, it's years of time that they are not getting the help and resources that they need." In addition to compensation, Mr. Dore said, the prosecution will also be looking to ensure that positive concussion policy changes made since 2010 continue, expand and have the requisite amount of oversight. "The policies that have come into play starting around 2010 are a significant step forward," Mr. Dore said. "Those are a big benefit to student-athletes. We would want to ensure that those are the best policies that can be, and likewise, we want to ensure mechanisms to see that they are being enforced." NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces 7 More Class Action Concussion Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the latest round of class-action concussion lawsuits against the NCAA and major college football conferences were filed by former college football players from Florida State, Miami, Florida, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Louisville and Murray State. The lawsuits were filed in federal courts on Aug. 31 by Chicago-based attorney Jay Edelson. The seven lawsuits increase the total number to 22 filed since May. The players are seeking damages for injuries they claim are the result of mishandled concussions they suffered while playing college football. In most cases the lawsuits name the NCAA and the conferences in which the schools competed. State laws protect most schools from being sued. The University of Miami, a private school, is named in the lawsuit filed by former defensive back Ryan Hill, who played for the Hurricanes from 2006-2010. NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters' Case Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund remains pending, Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Given the stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously. NUUN & COMPANY: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a lawsuit filed by a New Yorker against a drink tablet manufacturer didn't last long. The class action lawsuit was filed by consumer Jutamat Riedel and alleged that Nuun & Company LLC was engaging in false advertising because of the way it packaged its products for sale to the public for consumption. It was filed in late July, but was voluntarily dismissed on Aug. 22. The suit was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and it alleged unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices on the part of the company for the way it packaged its goods, allegedly tricking consumers into thinking more product was contained in the package than actually was. The complaint alleged that the product used a non-functional slack-fill item that made it appear that there was more of the product in the package. The plaintiffs asserted that the company knowingly deceived consumers using this as a tactic to sell goods. The plaintiffs were represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC in New York. Nuun & Company is based in Seattle and manufactures a drink tablet product that contains electrolytes for energy. It is marketed to the public as a sports drink. It was alleged that the non- transparent containers have room for 13 tablets but only holds 10 of them per container, with the rest of the space occupied by some sort of spring piece. Slack fill is a term used to describe empty space inside a container or package that does not serve a practical purpose or function for consumers of that product. Suits like this one allege that the empty space violates both state and national laws in consumer protection. The assertion in this complaint was that these sport drink tablets came packaged in containers in a way that made it so consumers could not physically see the space the tablets occupied in those containers. OUTERWALL INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Class Action in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ WeissLaw LLP on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of shareholders of Outerwall Inc. ("Outerwall") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition of Outerwall by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). On July 25, 2016, Outerwall and Apollo announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which an affiliate of Apollo commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Outerwall common stock for $52.00 in cash for each share of Outerwall common stock ("Proposed Transaction"). The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all Outerwall shareholders. The plaintiff is represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading Recommendation Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Outerwall shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from September 1, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. WeissLaw LLP -- http://www.weisslawllp.com-- has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. OVC: Ex-Murray State Athlete Files Concussion Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark McFarland, writing for TheNews.org, reports that James Harrison, also known as Clay Harrison, a former football player at Murray State from 2000-05 has filed a class action law suit against the OVC and the NCAA. Christopher Dore, partner at Edelson PC law firm in Chicago said, Mr. Harrison suffered multiple concussions during his playing days at Murray State, including being knocked unconscious. He has suffered multiple head traumas and continues to live with blackouts and painful headaches, Dore told The News. Mr. Dore said there have been 25 other cases filed as of Sept. 1 and expects there to more cases filed through their law firm in the coming weeks. Mr. Harrison joins University of Louisville former player Willie Johnson and University of Kentucky former player Demoreo Ford. Murray State is not named in the law suit because it is protected by law, but Mr. Dore said it will still be involved in the suit. In the last two years; there have been many other suits that have been filed. Mr. Dore told The News Edelson PC has helped players receive personal injury claims instead of just receiving medical monitoring in the last two years. Mr. Dore said it could take two or more years for cases like this to get resolved. The cases are being filed in the Illinois northern district federal court. PAYMENT DATA: Parties in "McFarland" to Meet & Confer on Sept. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, McFarland v. Long et al., 2:16-cv-00930 (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen directed the parties to meet and/or confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) not later than September 28, 2016. Discovery due by Jan. 23, 2017. Motions are due by Feb. 21, 2017. A Proposed Joint Pretrial Order is due by March 23, 2017. Payment Data Systems, Inc. is a nominal defendant in the case. Payment Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 26, 2015, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the Company, and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of the Company, filed a class-action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Nevada. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment by the Company's Board of Directors and certain executive officers and directors in connection with excessive and unfair compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as well as damages in an unspecified amount. As of March 17, 2016 the Court signed an order dismissing the claims against Peter Kirby and Michael Long, but did not rule as to the other defendants. On March 22, 2016 the Company filed an unopposed motion for final judgment as to everyone else and confirmed again with the Plaintiff that they do not oppose dismissal of the whole case. On April 5, 2016, the case was dismissed without prejudice. On April 26, 2016, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the Company, re- filed the same class-action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Nevada. PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Customers' Class Action Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Financial Group was a registered Future Commission Merchant (FCM) and a registered Forex Dealer Member of the National Futures Association. FCMs are similar to stock brokerages but instead of dealing in stocks they deal primarily in financial instruments known as futures contracts. In 2012, it was discovered that over a twenty-year period Peregrine's CEO, Russel L. Wasendorf, had embezzled nearly $200 million from Peregrine's segregated customer future accounts. In July 2012, as a result of the defalcation, Peregrine filed for bankruptcy. Ira Bodenstein was appointed as Peregrine's trustee. In September 2012, Bodenstein filed a motion seeking authority under section 766(h) of the Bankruptcy Code to make interim distributions of customer property to Peregrine customers who had traded in commodity contracts. Bodenstein excluded Peregrine's retail forex and OTC metal customers from the partial distribution, however, on the ground that forex and OTC metal accounts did not qualify as commodity contracts. The customers objected and filed an adversary complaint against Bodenstein arguing that their forex and OTC metal transactions with Peregrine qualified as commodity contracts under section 761 and that the funds in those accounts should have been included in the interim distribution. They argued that although their transactions were not futures contracts -- which are expressly included within the definition of commodity contracts -- they were close enough to futures contracts to fall within 11 U.S.C. section 761(4)(F)(i), which includes as commodity contracts transactions that are "similar to" the other types of transactions specifically defined section 761(4). In the alternative, the customers also argued that their funds had been held in a resulting trust by Peregrine and, thus, should be distributed apart from the bankruptcy estate. Because title to their funds was never transferred to Peregrine, the customers argued, they should have their funds paid in full immediately. On summary judgment, the court rejected the customers' contention that their forex and OTC metal transactions shared enough features with futures contracts to fall within the "similar to" provision of Section 761 and therefore dismissed the related counts of the customers' complaint. In re Peregrine Fin. Group, Inc., 510 B.R. at 205. After a bench trial on the remaining counts, the court went on to find that the customers had failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to their argument that the funds had been held in a resulting trust and concluded that once the customers transferred their funds to Peregrine they no longer retained title to those funds. After the first adversary proceeding was terminated, a second group of customers filed the FOREX Class Action adversary proceeding against Bodenstein, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion; they also sought the imposition of a constructive trust. After filing their class action complaint, the customers filed a motion to withdraw the proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, arguing that they had a right to a jury trial on their claims and that their claims against the trustee were non-core under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b). That motion was mooted, however, on May 13, 2015, when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the class action complaint as untimely. Bodenstein's motion for sanctions in that case, however, survives the dismissal of the motion to withdraw the reference. That dismissal forms the basis of an appeal, 15 C 04260, in which the customers argue that the court should have construed their class action claims as amended proofs of claim that relate back, under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(c), to their timely filed initial proofs of claim. In their consolidated appeals, appellants presented these issues for review: a. Did the bankruptcy court err in finding that Peregrine's forex and spot metal customers were not placed in a resulting trust? b. Did the bankruptcy court err in finding that 11 U.S.C. Sec. 761(4)(F)(i) (the similar contracts clause) does not extend to forex and metals contracts because such contracts are not similar to futures contracts? c. Did the bankruptcy court err in dismissing the customers' class action complaint as untimely because they brought it after the bar date for filing a proof of claim? d. Did the Bankruptcy Court err in refusing to consider the class action complaint as an amendment of customers' proofs of claim which related back to the date those claims were filed? In his Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated August 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/OibCBF from Leagle.com, District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow the customers to amend their proofs of claim under Rule 15. The customers alleged virtually no facts in their initial proofs of claim against Peregrine, other than the amount of money owed, which precludes their subsequent tort claims against CEO Wasendorf from relating back to the timely proofs of claim. Judge Tharp, Jr. affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that retail foreign exchange (forex) and OTC metal contracts were not commodity contracts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 761(4) and that funds were not held in a resulting trust by Peregrine and were properly included in the bankruptcy estate. The Court, however, denied Defendant's motion for sanctions. Judge Tharp, Jr. found that the customers' claims exist outside the bankruptcy context and it was not unreasonable for the customers to argue that they are "non-core" within the meaning of section 157. Hence, notwithstanding their merits, none of the customers' arguments with respect to their motion are sanctionable. The case is captioned, Secure Leverage Group, Inc., Treasure Island Coins, Inc., David G. Beyerleing, Richard W. Medley, Michael Krall, James Landrum, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira Bodenstein, Defendant-Appellee; v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Intervenor. Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville Coins, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira Bodenstein, Defendant- Appellee. Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville Coins, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira Bodenstein, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 14 CV 05024, 15 CV 04260, 15 CV 00344 (N.D. Ill.). Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC and Gainesville Coins, Inc. are represented by Michael C. Moody, Esq. -- moodym@gtlaw.com -- O'rourke, & Moody Ira Bodenstein, Appellee is represented by Carrie E. Davenport, Esq. -- cdavenport@shawfishman.com -- Robert M. Fishman, Esq. -- rfishman@shawfishman.com -- Terence G. Banich, Esq. -- tbanich@shawfishman.com -- Shaw Fishman Glantz & Towbin LLC PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: "D'Aversa" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit styled Dyan D'Aversa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Playtex Products, LLC, formerly known as Playtex Products, Inc., Edgewell Personal Care Company, and Sun Pharmaceutical, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03813, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-04977-WFK-ST to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is William F. Kuntz, II, Esq. Playtex manufactures and sells personal care products for babies, toddlers, teens, and adults. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 Facsimile: (856) 797 9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kegan Andrew Brown, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS One Newark Center, 16th Floor Newark, NJ 07101 Telephone: (973) 639 1234 Facsimile: (973) 639 7298 E-mail: kegan.brown@lw.com POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Ken Belsons, writing for The New York Times, reports that a class- action lawsuit has been filed against Pop Warner, the nation's largest youth football league, claiming that the organization knowingly put players in danger by ignoring the risks of head trauma. The suit is the biggest sign yet that youth football programs are the next front in the legal battle over concussions. Unlike other cases that have centered only on football leagues, the complaint also accuses USA Football, the youth football arm of the N.F.L., and the group that creates football helmet safety standards, of failing to protect young players from the dangers of brain trauma and the long-term consequences of repeated head hits, and ignoring medical research that underscores the dangers of playing football. Taken together, the class-action complaint, which was filed in federal court in California by the mothers of two deceased former football players, is the broadest challenge yet to youth football. It comes as the N.F.L. continues to rack up huge legal bills to combat similar claims. The N.C.A.A. and colleges have been swept into the legal maelstrom as well. The complaint against Pop Warner could spell trouble for smaller leagues that may come under increasing legal scrutiny. These leagues would have to pay more to defend themselves against lawsuits at the same time some of them are having to pay higher insurance premiums. Under scrutiny from wary parents, youth football leagues are introducing more training of coaches and players, another cost. Pop Warner, which has seen a decline in participation in recent years, has already had to fend off a variety of lawsuits brought by the families of players who were significantly injured or died. In March, Pop Warner settled a lawsuit with a family whose son played in the league and later committed suicide and was found to have a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated hits to the head. In January, Pop Warner settled a separate case in California brought by the mother of Donnovan Hill, a player in Los Angeles who was paralyzed. The latest case against Pop Warner was brought by Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell, whose sons played football as youngsters and were found after they died to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurological condition linked to repeated head hits. They are represented by Thomas Girardi and Robert Finnerty, who represent some of the former N.F.L. players who sued the league for knowingly hiding from them the dangers of repeated hits to the head. The N.F.L. has agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle that case. The case filed on Sept. 1 accuses Pop Warner of failing to monitor games, practices, rules, equipment and medical care "to minimize the long-term risks associated with brain injuries including repetitive sub-concussive hits"; failing to accurately diagnose brain injuries; and failing to approve the best equipment available. Pop Warner and the other defendants "acted with callous indifference" and players who participated in Pop Warner dating back nearly two decades are entitled to an unspecified amount of damages, according to the complaint. Jon Butler, the executive director of Pop Warner, said his organization had not seen the complaint. The complaint has also taken aim at USA Football for promoting safety programs that are of questionable value and for issuing flawed research to back up its claims that the programs are effective in reducing the risk of concussions. In particular, USA Football, which has received tens of millions of dollars in funding from the N.F.L., has misrepresented the benefits of its Heads Up Football program that trains coaches on how to teach so-called safe tackling techniques. An investigation by The New York Times found that USA Football relied on flawed research to bolster its claims that Heads Up Football helped reduce the risk of concussions. Steve Alic, a spokesman for USA Football, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The suit also accuses the National Operating Committee on Standards Athletic Equipment, or Nocsae, of certifying helmets that were not designed to properly protect younger players, and overstated their safety benefits. According to the complaint, Nocsae has no youth-specific helmet safety standard, yet falsely maintained that helmets used by players in Pop Warner were safe. Mike Oliver, the executive director of Nocsae, said that he had not seen the complaint but that his organization had never stated that any helmet was safe. All helmets approved by his group include permanent warning labels that alert players that "no helmet can prevent all head or any neck injuries a player might receive while participating in football." PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Final Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court will hold a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit on November 28, 2016. The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are parties to litigation captioned Gauri Ramnath, et al. v. Professional Diversity Network, Inc., et al., No. BC604153 (Los Angeles Superior Ct.), a putative class action alleging violations of various California Labor Code (wage & hour) sections. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The complaint was filed in December 2015 and the Company answered. On April 28, 2016, the parties entered into a mutual settlement agreement and release, on behalf of all putative class participants, in the amount of $500,000. Such amount is recorded in accrued expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2016. The parties' agreement and its amount are subject to Court and state agency approval. The Company has been notified that the Court will hold a hearing to consider final approval on November 28, 2016. The Company anticipates that, if the global settlement is approved, it will have to fund the settlement in late Fourth Quarter of 2016 or early First Quarter of 2017. PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Coleman" Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Noble Voice, LLC, were parties to litigation captioned as Coleman v. Noble Voice, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CV-6791 (N.D. Ill.), a putative class action, pursuant to which a consumer alleged that Noble Voice violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by contacting him in relation to a job for which he applied online. The complaint sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in August 2015 and the Company timely filed its answer. This case was settled for a confidential but nominal amount during the Second Quarter of 2016 and the action has been dismissed. PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Vazquez" Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was party to litigation captioned as Norma Vazquez v. Professional Diversity Network, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-13-WCO (N.D.Ga.), a putative class action, pursuant to which a consumer alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by sending her a text message inviting her to attend a career fair. The complaint sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in January 2016 and the Company timely filed its answer. This case was settled for a confidential but nominal amount during the Second Quarter of 2016 and the action has been dismissed. QUALITY BUILT: Gates at Williams-Brice Suit Goes to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned The Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Association and Katherine Swinson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quality Built, LLC, and Coast to Coast Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a/Criterium Engineers, Defendants, C.A. No. 3:16-cv-02022-CMC (D.S.C.), Judge Cameron McGowan Currie granted the motion filed by the plaintiffs to remand, but denied the plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs sought recovery for the defendants' alleged failure to ensure quality control in the construction of a 158 unit condominium complex. The matter was originally filed in state court in December 2013. The complaint named a single defendant, Quality Built, LLC, which entity was served in January 2014. The original complaint did not specifically allege an amount in controversy, though it did allege widespread damage resulting from water penetration and "spalling" in the condominium complex and sought punitive damages under one cause of action. The plaintiffs later moved to amend the complaint to add Coast to Coast Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a Criterium Engineers ("Criterium") as a defendant and assert a successor liability theory against Quality Built. Criterium filed a Notice of Removal on June 17, 2016, less than 30 days after it was first served. The notice of removal relied on diversity as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argued removal was improper for a variety of procedural reasons including (1) the "consent" to removal filed by Quality Built is defective because it includes a reservation of a right to move for remand, (2) Quality Built's purported consent is untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after Criterium was served with the complaint, and (3) removal is time-barred by 18 U.S.C. section 1446's one-year limitation on removal of diversity actions. Judge Currie found the removal procedurally defective both because Quality Built's consent was qualified and because the consent was untimely. In reaching these conclusions, the judge has considered the plaintiffs' argument that uncertainty should be resolved in favor of remand. Accordingly, Judge Currie granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand. Because it impacts the decision to deny fees, Judge Currie also addressed the plaintiffs' argument that Section 1446(c)(1) bars removal of the action. The argument rests on the premise Section 1446(c)(1)'s one-year limitation on removal applies to all actions removed on the basis of diversity. The judge, however, found that Criterium's arguments for a contrary interpretation are, at the least, reasonable. Thus, Judge Currie found Criterium did not act unreasonably in removing the action and, therefore, denied the plaintiffs' request for an award of fees and costs. A full-text copy of Judge Currie's September 7, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/Sh6oQ5 from Leagle.com. The Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Association, Katharine Swinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Justin O'Toole Lucey -- jlucey@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm, Stephanie D. Drawdy -- sdrawdy@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm. Quality Built, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Ross Belcher, Jr. -- abelcher@hallboothsmith.com -- Alan Belcher Law Offices & Elizabeth F. Wieters -- efreeman@hallboothsmith.com -- Hall Booth Smith. Coast to Coast Engineering Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Freeman Belser -- freeman@belserpa.com -- Belser and Belser, Michael J. Polk -- mike@belserpa.com -- Belser and Belser & Timothy Bryant -- tbryant@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty, pro hac vice. REGENCY PARTY: Faces "Deneus" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GUYVENER DENEUS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REGENCY PARTY RENTALS & SUPPLIES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporations, and NICK IVANCEVIC, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81552-KAM (S.D. Fla., September 7, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. REGENCY PARTY RENTALS & SUPPLIES, INC. provides its services to individuals, homeowners, corporations, local business owners, hotels, caterers, country clubs, charitable organizations, wedding consultants and event planners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone: 561-853-2212 Fax: 561-853-2213 Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com RELENTLESS RECOVERY: Faces "Caringi" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY CARINGI 34091 Gail Drive North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039 And MELISSA ANN RICKER 420 W. Main St. Cairo, Ohio 45820, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. RELENTLESS RECOVERY, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Amy Osterling 1898 Scranton Road Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02236-CAB (N.D. Ohio, September 7, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. RELENTLESS RECOVERY, INC. is an Ohio company that provides repossession services throughout the State of Ohio and surrounding states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com RFS HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Advisors Action ----------------------------------------------------------- RFS Holding, L.L.C. said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from June 22, 2016 to July 21, 2016, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, not in its individual capacity but solely as indenture trustee, has provided the following information to RFS Holding, L.L.C. for inclusion in this Form 10-D. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunity to file new defensive motions with respect to the amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. The complaint has not yet been served. Discovery has not yet commenced. RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Adelman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Craig Adelman, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-00190 JWS (D. Ariz.), Judge John W. Sedwick granted in part and denied, in part, Rheem Manufacturing Company's motion to dismiss certain counts of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed by the plaintiffs, Craig Adelman, Jason McGee, Ronald Plucinski, Kenneth Holdeman, and Paul Sklar. The case is a putative class action brought by consumers of allegedly defective air conditioners, air handlers, and heat pumps manufactured by Rheem. The plaintiffs alleged that the copper evaporator and condenser coils in these products are defective because they leak refrigerant. The SAC contains the following seven causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of Rheem's express warranties; (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); (4) unjust enrichment; (5) breach of Rheem's express warranties under Arizona law; (6) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); and (7) violation of Louisiana's Redhibition Law. Rheem's present motion attacks Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7. On Count One, Rheem argued that the plaintiffs' declaratory relief cause of action merely duplicates other claims alleged in the SAC. The plaintiffs pointed out that the existence of another remedy does not preclude an action for declaratory relief. Judge Sedwick, however, held that declaratory relief should be denied in this case because it will neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties. On Count Four, Judge Sedwick found that Rheem's challenge to the SAC's unjust enrichment claim recycled an unsuccessful argument that it had already raised. Thus, the judge again rejected this argument. On Count Six, Rheem argued that the plaintiffs' FDUTPA claim should be dismissed because it fails to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements. The plaintiffs argued that Rule 9(b) does not apply to FDUTPA claims. Alternatively, the plaintiffs argued that even if Rule 9(b) applies, their FDUTPA cause of action is stated with sufficient particularity. Judge Sedwick found that the plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity Rheem's unfair or deceptive conduct and state of mind. In Count Seven, Sklar alleged a redhibition cause of action under Louisiana law. Rheem challenged this cause of action on two grounds: (1) the alleged defect cannot be redhibitory because it was apparent to Sklar; and (2) even if the defect is redhibitory, Sklar did not allege that Rheem was given an opportunity to repair the alleged defect and failed to do so. Judge Sedwick held that both arguments fail because Rheem has not shown that it is a matter of common knowledge that copper coils are prone to premature corrosion, and because as the manufacturer, Rheem is presumed to be a bad faith seller, and Sklar is not required to prove that he gave Rheem a chance to correct the defect before litigation. A full-text copy of Judge Sedwick's September 7, 2016 order and opinion is available at https://is.gd/yVbX6e from Leagle.com. Craig Adelman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Arthur Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Barry Lance Entrekin, Entrekin Law Firm, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Lisa Anne White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Russell D. Paul -- rpaul@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC & Mark E. Silvey, Greg Coleman Law PC. Jason McGee, Kenneth Holdeman, Paul Sklar, Ronald Plucinski, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Arthur Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, Barry Lance Entrekin, Entrekin Law Firm, Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, Jonathan Shub, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Lisa Anne White, Greg Coleman Law PC, Russell D. Paul, Berger & Montague PC, Shanon Jude Carson, Berger & Montague PC. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Adam Michael Foslid -- foslida@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, David Andrew Coulson -- coulson@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Pamela M. Overton -- overtonp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Eva M. Spahn -- spahn@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP. RIGHTSCORP INC: Nov. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing regarding final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit is set for November 14, 2016. John Blaha v. Rightscorp, Inc, C.D. Cal. (Original Complaint Filed November 21, 2014; First Amended Complaint Filed March 9, 2015), seeks relief for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227). The action is brought on behalf of the individual named plaintiff as well as on behalf of a putative nationwide classes. Progress of Matter to Date: This matter was previously captioned with Karen J. Reif and Isaac Nesmith as lead plaintiffs. On March 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint replacing the lead plaintiffs, dropping their second and third causes of action for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.) and Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.) (and dropping associated putative class claims), and naming BMG Rights Management (US) LLC and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. as additional defendants. The First Amended Complaint also contained a cause of action for Abuse of Process. In response to the Abuse of Process claim, defendants brought a special motion to strike the claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute. Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was granted on May 8, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's May 8, 2015 Order, the Abuse of Process claim (and associated putative class claim) was stricken from the case and plaintiff was ordered to pay defendants' attorney's fees incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP motion. Following the dismissal of Plaintiff's Abuse of Process claim, the parties agreed to mediate the dispute and reached a settlement in principal. On June 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On August 1, 2016, notice was sent to the class. A hearing regarding final approval of the settlement is set for November 14, 2016. The Company has recorded a reserve for the estimated settlement of $200,000 related to this, which is net of expected insurance proceeds of $250,000. ROBERT HALF: Attorney's Fee Award in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kathryn Werdegar of the California Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals judgment in the case captioned, MARK LAFFITTE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; DAVID BRENNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, Civil No. S222996 (Cal.) Three related wage and hour class action lawsuits were filed against Robert Half International Inc., a staffing firm, and related companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In September 2012, the parties jointly moved for an order conditionally certifying a settlement class and preliminarily approving a settlement. The trial court granted the motion and preliminarily approved the settlement. With the court's permission, the proposed settlement was amended in November 2012. Under the settlement agreement as amended, Robert Half would pay a gross settlement amount of $19 million. It was agreed class counsel would request attorney fees of not more than $6,333,333.33 to be paid from the settlement amount. Robert Half would not oppose a fee request up to that amount, and if a smaller amount was approved by the court the remainder would be retained in the settlement amount for distribution to claimants, rather than reverting to Robert Half. The settlement agreement further provided that any unclaimed portion of the net settlement amount would be reallocated to qualified claimants rather than returned to Robert Half or given to any third party. While tentatively approving the settlement and fee request, the trial court asked counsel for additional information and discussion on certain points. On April 10, 2013, the trial court overruled class member David Brennan's objections and gave the settlement and attorney fee request its final approval. On appeal, the objecting class member contends the trial court's award of an attorney fee calculated as a percentage of the settlement amount violates a holding of this court in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 (Serrano III), to the effect that every fee award must be calculated on the basis of time spent by the attorney or attorneys on the case. In her Order dated August 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/MuzDpD from Leagle.com, Judge Werdegar held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in using the percentage of fund method. The Court hold further that trial courts have discretion to conduct a lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee and that they also retain the discretion to forgo a lodestar cross-check and use other means to evaluate the reasonableness of a requested percentage fee. Mark Laffitte, et al. are represented by Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. -- Barnes@Kbarnes.com -- and Gregg Lander, Esq. -- Lander@kbarnes.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES -- Joseph Antonelli, Esq. -- jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- and Janelle Carney, Esq. -- jcarney@antonellilaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI Robert Half International, Inc. et al. are Judith M. Kline, Esq. -- judykline@paulhastings.com -- and M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. -- kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP SAM'S WEST: Court Dismisses SCUTPA Claim in "Fejzulai" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Myriam Fejzulai, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Sam's West, Inc., et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:14-3601-BHH (D.S.C.), Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks granted the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims for alleged violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA). The plaintiffs filed the putative class action on September 10, 2014, alleging a breach of contract claim founded on certain terms and conditions of the Sam's Club Membership Agreement. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have, on diverse occasions, breached the "200% Freshness Guarantee" found in the Membership Agreement by failing to refund 200% of the purchase price of any returned item subject to the Guarantee (or alternatively refund 100% of the purchase price and replace the item, as provided in the Guarantee). The plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of SCUTPA sought to represent a South Carolina subclass. The defendants, however, sought dismissal of the SCUTPA claim to the extent it is asserted on behalf of a putative subclass. Judge Hendricks agreed with the defendants that SCUTPA claims may not be brought by a private party in a representative capacity and thus, dismissed the SCUTPA claim to the extent it is brought in a representative capacity. A full-text copy of Judge Hendricks's September 7, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/AdIGzR from Leagle.com. Myriam Fejzulai, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Herlong, Herlong Law Firm. Myriam Fejzulai, Monica Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher James Moore -- cmoore@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, Dennis Charles Dukes, II -- cdukes@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, Terry Edward Richardson, Jr. -- trichardson@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, Thomas Christopher Tuck -- ctuck@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman & William D. Herlong, Herlong Law Firm. Sam's West Inc, Sam's East Inc, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Defendants, represented by Donna Ojetta Tillis -- donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Benjamin Rush Smith, III -- rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Robert J. Herrington -- herrington@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & Sarah B. Nielsen -- sarah.nielsen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Says Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations --------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the proposed settlement agreement in the case, In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, is subject to final negotiations between the parties and court approval. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Mississippian Trust I and the Mississippian Trust II (together, the "Mississippian Trusts") and the underwriter defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the individual current and former officers and directors, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in which plaintiffs assert federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period between February 24, 2011, and November 8, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the "Kansas District Court") in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the "Oklahoma District Court"). On February 25, 2014, the Kansas District Court granted the defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Oklahoma District Court. On April 2, 2014, the Oklahoma District Court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014, the Oklahoma District Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will establish a settlement fund from which to pay participating plaintiffs' claims as well as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final negotiations between the parties and court approval. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company established a $5.1 million reserve for this lawsuit. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012 (the "Class Period"), and (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times during the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital expenditures. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with this lawsuit. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Action Administratively Closed ----------------------------------------------------------- Gernandt v. Sandridge Energy Inc et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00834 (W.D. Okla.), was administratively terminated pursuant to a June 7, 2016, Order, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen for entry of any stipulation or order within 30 days after the termination of SandRidge's bankruptcy proceeding. The Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti signed the Administrative Closing Order. Judge DeGiusti also signed an order staying the case in its entirety pending resolution of SandRidge's bankruptcy. SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the named defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose 401(k) Plan accounts included investments in SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the 401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the 401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the investment of the 401(k) Plan's assets in SandRidge common stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company's common stock was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings. On August 19, 2015, Christina A. Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all participants for whose individual accounts the Plan held shares of the Company's common stock from November 8, 2012, to the present, inclusive. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the 401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the 401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the investment of the 401(k) Plan's assets in the Company's common stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company. On September 10, 2015, the Court consolidated this lawsuit with the Gernandt action. On September 14, 2015, Richard A. McWilliams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the named defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the 401(k) Plan at any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose 401(k) Plan accounts included investments in SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the 401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the 401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the investment of the 401 (k) Plan's assets in the Company's common stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company's common stock was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings. On September 24, 2015, the Court consolidated this lawsuit with the Gernandt action. On November 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the consolidated Gernandt action. The Company intends to defend this consolidated lawsuit vigorously. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs and Marler Dismissed Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Lisa Griggs and April Marler voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice. On November 18, 2015, Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a First Amended Collective Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and SandRidge Operating Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company improperly classified certain of its consultants as independent contractors rather than as employees and, therefore, improperly paid such consultants a day rate without paying any overtime compensation. On January 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order conditionally certifying the class and providing for notice. On January 12, 2016, Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative class action petition in the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, and certain other oil and gas exploration companies. In their petition, plaintiffs assert various tort claims based upon purported damage and loss resulting from earthquakes allegedly caused by the defendants' operations of wastewater disposal wells. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "all residents of Oklahoma owning real property from 2011 through the time the Class is certified." On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the lawsuit to the Oklahoma District Court. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the action back to the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. On June 30, 2016, the Oklahoma District Court denied the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. On July 21, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Antitrust Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation, remains pending. On March 3, 2016, Brian Thieme, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and distinct classes of members. On March 10, 2016, Don Beadles, in Trust for the Alva Synagogue Church, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that since as early as December 2007, and continuing until at least as late as March 2012 (the "Relevant Class Period"), the defendants conspired to rig bids and otherwise depress the amounts they paid to property owners for the acquisition of oil and gas leasehold interests and producing properties located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll persons and entities that, during the Relevant Class Period, provided or sold to one of more of the Defendants (a) oil and gas leasehold interests on their property and/or (b) the producing properties, in exchange for lease payments, including but not limited to lease bonuses." On March 24, 2016, Janet L. Lowry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the price of royalty and bonus payments exchanged for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and interests in properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and distinct classes of members. On April 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma consolidated the Thieme, Beadles, and Lowry cases under the caption "In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation," together with nine additional subsequently filed cases, as well as with any other cases pending in the court, alleging similar violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Koppitz" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Harold Koppitz has voluntarily dismissed the Company from a class action lawsuit without prejudice. On March 29, 2016, Harold Koppitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action petition in the District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or around February 1, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests located within the State of Oklahoma in violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and distinct classes of members. On August 3, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Company from this lawsuit without prejudice. On April 26, 2016, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On that same date, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his petition. On April 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a new petition in the District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants, in which plaintiff makes allegations substantially similar to the allegations contained in his original petition. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Mallory" Action ------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Wesley and Towanda Mallory have voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Company as a defendant in their class action lawsuit. On April 13, 2016, Wesley and Towanda Mallory, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action petition in the District Court of Stephens County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiffs allege that, commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least April 1, 2013 (the "Class Period"), the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress prices for oil and natural gas leasehold and working interests and producing properties within the State of Oklahoma in violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "[a]ll Oklahoma citizens and entities that, during the relevant Class Period, provided or sold to one of more of the Defendants (a) oil and gas leasehold interests on their property and/or (b) the producing properties or interests relating to land located in the Anadarko Basin Region, in exchange for lease payments, including but not limited to lease bonuses." On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Company as a defendant in this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Hendrix" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Felicia Hendrix, Cynthia Brown, Omar Mohammad, Carum Rogers, John Eberle, Doug Shipe, Brian Quinn, and Michelle Yarborough, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Shipcom Wireless, Inc., Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-02714 (S.D. Tex., September 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shipcom Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.shipcomwireless.com/-- develops integrated supply chain execution software solutions that focus on radio frequency identification (RFID) and enterprise mobility markets in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq. Mark G. Lazarz, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net dsinkule@eeoc.net SOCIAL SECURITY: Robson's U.S. Totalization Benefits Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nathanael M. Cousins affirmed the determination made by the administrative law judge (ALJ) of Richard Robson's benefits in the case captioned RICHARD H. ROBSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03652 NC (N.D. Cal.). Robson has social security retirement credits in the United States and in Canada. On December 6, 2011, the Social Security Administration (SSA) granted Robson's application for U.S. Totalization benefits beginning on October 1, 2011, awarding him monthly benefits. Robson requested a review of the SSA's calculation of his benefits, arguing that he was entitled to a higher monthly payment. After denial by the agency, Robson requested a hearing in front of an administrative law judge (ALJ). After a hearing, the ALJ found that Robson's benefits were correctly calculated. Robson appealed and the appellate panel denied his appeal. On August 10, 2015, Robson appealed the Commissioner's decision to the district court, proceeding pro se. On April 29, 2016, Robson filed a motion to strike the defendant's answer, estop defendant, make the case a class action, and for summary judgment. The court denied this motion, finding that it failed to refer to the administrative record and was outside the scope of the court's administrative review authority. The court gave Robson an opportunity renew his motion for summary judgment based on the administrative record. Instead, Robson filed a motion for reconsideration (also titled a motion for summary judgment) and a motion for sanctions. Judge Cousins found that Robson presented no new law or facts to support his motion for reconsideration, so the court did not reconsider the rulings it already made. The judge also found that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and there is no error of law. A full-text copy of Judge Cousins' September 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/4JLqjK from Leagle.com. Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant, represented by Patrick William Snyder, Social Security Administration & Sara Winslow, United States Attorney's Office. SOLAR CITY: Faces "Daugherty" Labor Litigation in California ------------------------------------------------------------ BREANA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, vs. SOLAR CITY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05155-JCS (N.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), is a complaint for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition, among others. SolarCity Corporation designs, manufactures, installs, monitors, maintains, leases, and sells solar energy systems to government, residential, and commercial customers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (31 0) 888-7771 Fax: (31 0) 888-01 09 E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com shaun@setarehlaw.com SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Boyd" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Boyd on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Spectra Energy Operating Company, LLC, Defendant, Case 7:16-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., September 1, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendant provides pipeline inspection services across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that Subaru of America could put new engines in vehicles under an agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit against the Cherry Hill firm. A federal judge gave final approval on Aug. 31 to settlement of the suit, which contends some Subaru vehicles were subject to excessive oil consumption. The suit, filed in July 2014, also alleged Subaru was "unresponsive" to customer complaints and set "an unreasonably high threshold" for oil-consumption testing, according to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle in Camden. The agreement covers vehicles built between 2011 and 2015 for the Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback models. More than 665,000 people owned or leased vehicles in those categories, according to the suit. Under the settlement, Subaru denies wrongdoing. The company asserts its vehicles were "properly designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, warranted and sold." The firm also contends "more than 98 percent of the settlement class vehicles have not experienced, and will not experience, any oil consumption concerns," according to Judge Simandle's decision. "We believe that by this settlement, Subaru has affirmed its reputation for standing behind its products and taking care of its customers," company spokesman Michael McHale said on Sept. 1. According to the ruling, Subaru has agreed to install a "redesigned" engine, worth about $4,000, "and other countermeasures" in some vehicles found to have oil-burning issues. "One would expect the oil defect rate to become negligible and the prospect of a second (engine) replacement to be very small," Judge Simandle said. The settlement also offers free oil-consumption testing and reimbursement for past expenses, including "certain repairs and replacements of engine components," the ruling said. It extends warranty protection for problems related to excessive oil consumption. The settlement, which does not have an overall price tag, "is secured by Subaru's financial strength," Judge Simandle added. He noted the carmaker must file quarterly reports on claims made by its customers. Judge Simandle, who gave preliminary approval in January, said the settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate." He said the response from Subaru owners "has been strongly positive," with only 34 people -- "a trace amount" -- filing formal objections. The judge noted 2,328 people had opted out of the settlement, but said that represented just 0.35 percent of the overall group. He rejected arguments that the settlement did not address a possible loss in value for affected Subarus, saying the vehicles could command a higher price with a new engine. The settlement also calls for Subaru to pay up to $1.5 million to attorneys who sued the auto company. It provides $3,500 for each of nine people who were named as plaintiffs. TATA CONSULTANCY: "Hall" Suit Seeks Moved to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit titled Joshua Hall, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, a Corporation and Does 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02016-00016447-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02272-CAB-MDD to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Tata Consultancy is an Indian multinational information technology service, consulting and business solutions company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551 1223 Facsimile: (858) 551 1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com - and - Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720 8900 Facsimile: (858) 509 3691 E-mail: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Airbag Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a Marina del Rey Lexus owner has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota over its handling of an airbag recall. Carole B. Black filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on Aug. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc.; and Sullivan Luxury Cars LLC, doing business as Lexus Santa Monica, alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in July, she received a notice regarding a recall due to a defective Takata airbag in her vehicle. The plaintiff alleges she contacted Toyota about replacing the airbag, but was told the company does not have a current plan to replace them or parts. Once the parts are available, the suit states, those affected by the recall will be placed in a queue for repairs. The plaintiff holds Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc.; and Sullivan Luxury Cars LLC responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide proper remedy to the defective airbag that is present on their vehicles. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks award of compensatory, exemplary, punitive and statutory damages; disgorgement of all allegedly ill-gotten profits; all legal fees and interest; and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Shannon A. Lang of Shannon A. Lang PLLC in Houston. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division Case number 2:16-cv-06343-CBM-AGR UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Urges Calif. Judge to Reject NLRB Subpoenas -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. is urging a California judge to reject National Labor Relations Board subpoenas that seek nationwide information about the ride-sharing company's relationships with its drivers. Uber, represented by Littler Mendelson, on Sept. 12 said the labor board's subpoenas, rooted in claims from two drivers in California, are "nationwide, overly broad and burdensome." The NLRB subpoenas are part of an inquiry from the board into whether Uber drivers are statutory employees and thus protected by federal labor law. The agency says it cannot make that threshold determination based on information about only two drivers. Uber's lawyers pointed to court rulings over the past six years in which federal judges have questioned the merits of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's nationwide discovery rooted in specific circumstances. "The [NLRB] ignores the fact that courts consistently decline to enforce agency subpoenas seeking nationwide information on the basis of individual charges," Littler Mendelson's Robert Hulteng - - rhulteng@littler.com -- said in a court filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Mr. Hulteng wasn't immediately reached for comment on Sept. 13. The NLRB declined to comment. NLRB lawyers challenge Uber's assertion that courts have refused to enforce regulatory agencies' nationwide subpoenas. Courts have upheld those subpoenas "when the matters under investigation are nationwide in scope," NLRB lawyers Carmen Leon and Christy Kwon said in the Sept. 12 court papers, filed jointly with Uber. The NLRB pointed to a case in which a North Carolina judge ruled in August in favor of NLRB subpoenas that sought information from Raleigh Restaurant Concepts Inc., doing business as The Men's Club of Raleigh. The subpoena dispute was related to a case in which an exotic dancer alleged that The Men's Club misclassified performers as independent contractors. The Men's Club, represented by a team from Jackson Lewis, refused to disclose copies of rules and handbooks that apply to the company's entertainers. U.S. District Judge James Dever III of the Eastern District of North Carolina found the NLRB's request "reasonably" related to the board's investigation of alleged labor violations. The Men's Club on Sept. 9 took the dispute to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Regulators, in seeking national information, cited Uber's estimation of having 700,000 drivers across the country. "Because [Uber] operates nationwide, the threshold issue became nationwide, resulting in the subpoenas seeking nationwide information," NLRB lawyers said in the Sept. 12 court filing. "Thus, the scope of the subpoenas is not overbroad or irrelevant but is driven by the scope of Uber's own business model." The subpoena dispute is unfolding as a recent Ninth Circuit ruling places a major challenge to Uber's class action waivers in front of an arbitrator, not a federal judge. The appeals court ruled on Sept. 7 that drivers suing the company could be bound by arbitration agreements. The ruling was a big victory for Uber, which has faced with a barrage of suits over employment issues like driver classification and background checks in recent years. UNITED SERVICES: Five Attorneys Face Sanctions in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while initially calling out 16 lawyers for possible sanctions on both sides of a class action settlement, a federal judge has ordered five of those attorneys to be sanctioned. The five lawyers that were reprimanded are D. Matt Keil, John C Goodson, Jason Earnest Roselius, Martin Weber Jr. and Richard E. Norman. Chief Judge P.K. Holmes III for the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Arkansas handed down the sanctions after the attorneys allegedly violated Rule 11 by dismissing a class action case from his federal court and refiling it in a state court for a more favorable settlement outcome. On Aug. 3, an order was issued confirming that the sanctions against the attorneys were necessary. The attorneys under scrutiny argued that they had never been sanctioned before and that dismissal was commonplace in class action suits. The attorneys also claimed that the federal court failed to have the correct authority to review the settlement, since no class was approved at the time that the case was dismissed from the federal court. The court proceeded with the sanctions against the attorneys, issuing only reprimands to them and not taking more serious actions. "I am not surprised," D. Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- shareholder at Carlton Fields, told Legal Newsline. "This area of the law is not as black and white as the court implied in its order. "The court even recognized in its orders that the practice of voluntarily dismissing a case in federal court to effectuate a settlement in state court is a common practice in some parts of the country, including Arkansas. I think that is why the sanctions were not more onerous or extensive." The attorneys who were reprimanded were found to have violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class action case against USAA Insurance Co. involved insurance claims that had allegedly excessive depreciation costs figured into them. The case spent several months in federal court, but after it was dismissed, a settlement was filed the next day in a state court. Judge Holmes felt the two sides had wasted his court's time. A total of $1,850,000 in fees and expenses were issued to the plaintiffs attorneys in the case in a quick pay provision with a total settlement of $3,445,598. While the attorneys were paid out immediately, only a total of 650 claims were filed, while a settlement of this size should have affected in the range of 15,000 individuals, which Judge Holmes said was caused by moving to a state court. Judge Holmes said the attorneys abused the judicial system and were gaming the system to give themselves a better payout. While reprimands were a light sanction for the attorneys, they may serve as a deterrent to other class action lawyers that shop court venues for the most favorable settlement award. "It may well do so," Mr. Allen said. "The court's orders have received wide publication in the class action bar, and they may well have an impact on the use of this practice. Certainly, litigants will need to take these orders into account in attempting something similar in the future." UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Suit Agaisnt DOL's Fiduciary Rule -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Thornton, writing for Benefits Pro, reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which is scheduled to hear a consolidated lawsuit against the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule on November 17, 2016, will consider two amici briefs supportive of the rule. As first reported in Think Advisor, BenefitsPro's sister publication, six other submitted briefs were rejected by Judge Barbara Lynn. The brief submitted by the Financial Planning Coalition, a consortium of three associations representing more than 80,000 financial planning professionals that are required to operate under a fiduciary standard, makes several arguments that strike at the core of the allegations raised by plaintiffs in the consolidated suit, which include the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Insured Retirement Institute. And a brief filed by American Association for Justice, formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association, which lobbies on behalf of plaintiffs' bar interests, defends the class-action provision Labor crafted in the rule's Best Interest Contract Exemption. Coalition argues rule won't harm small investors Throughout the rule-making process, opponents of the DOL argued that requiring all advisors to IRAs and 401(k) plans with less than $50 million in assets to serve as fiduciaries would have the unintended consequence of limiting small investors' access to investment advice. And since its finalization, opponents have argued the rule will have the effect of banning commission-based compensation on investment products, which are considered prohibited transactions under the rule's BIC exemption. The Financial Planning Coalition argues both those arguments are not based in fact. In order to comply with the BIC exemption, a preponderance of commission-based brokerage accounts are expected to move to a fee- based form of compensation. Plaintiffs suing the DOL argue that will disincentivize brokers from servicing lower-value accounts. But the Coalition argues that "thousands" of its members offer fiduciary-level advice to "everyday" Americans requiring no, or very low minimum assets under management. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Labor Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DONOGHUE, ROBERT KICKLIGHTER, THOMAS ADAMS, TERRI BARRETT and MARK DAIELLO, for Themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TESINC LLC, EVANS SPLICING, LLC and PS SPLICING, LLC, Defendants, Case 2:16- cv-04742-MAK (E.D. Pa., September 1, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Defendant entities are inter-related and commonly-controlled businesses that, among other things, construct, install and service cable television, telephone, and internet services across the country, including the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-873-4836 Fax: 312-233-1560 - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 VOLKSWAGEN AG: 200,000 Vehicle Owners Opt for Buyback Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that more than 200,000 VW owners have opted for the Dieselgate buyback program, surprising some legal authorities with the speed with which it happened, about a month or a little more. Although it is the more expensive option, Volkswagen may be happy that more than 200,000 consumers affected by the Dieselgate scandal are opting for the cash buyback and not a fix. The reason is that the automaker may avoid further penalties as each vehicle the carmaker buys back is one more off the road. VW must get 85 percent of the emissions-cheating cars off the road to prevent more penalties. The settlement VW worked out with consumers and regulators to settle the class-action suit calls for: -- A cash buyback of affected vehicles -- Or, $5,100 -- Or, a free fix, if one should be approved and become available -- 44 Percent Opt In, So Far Nearly 44 percent of the 482,000 U.S. drivers affected by the emissions-cheating settlement are going for the gold and not the fix, said the lead attorney in the class-action suit. Elizabeth Crabaser indicated the numbers could change if a fix were to become available. Indeed, the automaker has reason to be concerned if a fix is approved because the numbers could change radically. A Canadian VW diesel owner recently told Torque News that he was quite happy with his Jetta TDI. Indeed, if a fix were available, he would opt for it to keep his diesel on the road. He is satisfied with the performance of his VW that he plans to trade for another because he expects there will be "good deals available." His comments are representative of the views of many owners of the vehicles involved in the Dieselgate buyback program. At the moment, Volkswagen is in the clear as its fixes have been rejected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is still no fix available for the 2.0-liter, four-cylinder diesel engine, although there has been some indication that there could be a fix for 85,000 3.0-liter V-6 diesel powerplants that have been used in luxury VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles by October. (In Europe, the automaker has received permission to begin fixing up to 8.5 million of the 11 million 2.0-liter-engine-equipped vehicles caught up in Dieselgate.) Interestingly, the speed with which 210,000 consumers have registered for the buyback has surprised legal experts. Deborah Hensler, who teaches law at Stanford, with an emphasis on multi-district and international class-action suits, seemed surprised when she told an interviewer: "Wow. This is a huge number in a relatively short period of time (a bit over a month). But, on the other hand, it would be shocking if a huge fraction of class members were to opt out when it has not been made inordinately difficult for class members to register." Volkswagen has set aside about $10 billion to buy back vehicles equipped with 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engines, the majority of powerplants involved in the VW-inspired scam where cheatware (software used to cheat) was installed in millions of vehicles to make it appear as if those vehicles met the U.S. standard for NOx emissions, even as they were still pumping out pollutants. VOLKSWAGEN AG: ACCC to Launch Legal Action Over "Defeat Software" ----------------------------------------------------------------- David McCowen, writing for Drive, reports that Australia's consumer watchdog has launched an assault on Volkswagen and its local distributors, claiming the carmaker broke local laws and lied to customers about its products. The ACCC will pursue action against Volkswagen's German headquarters and its Australian operation in Federal Court. It alleges that between 2011 and 2015, the manufacturer engaged in misleading conduct "by installing and not disclosing the existence and operation of 'defeat' software" to reduce vehicle emissions. The body says Volkswagen falsely claimed its vehicles complied with regulatory requirements "when, because of the defeat software, this was not the case", and that it sold vehicles as being environmentally friendly "when this was not the case under normal driving conditions". For its part, Volkswagen Australia says it is reviewing the ACCC's claims, and that the court action does not provide "any practical benefit to consumers because software solutions for cars affected by the voluntary recall are expected soon". The company's managing director, Michael Bartsch, says "the best outcome for customers whose vehicle is affected is to have the voluntary recall service updates installed". ACCC chair Rod Sims takes a different view, saying the carmaker "engaged in multiple breaches of the Australian consumer law". "Consumers rightly expect that their vehicle's emissions would operate as advertised during their day-to-day use and we allege that this was not the case with more than 57,000 vehicles sold in Australia by Volkswagen over a five-year period," Mr. Sims says. "These allegations involve extraordinary conduct of a serious and deliberate nature by a global corporation and its Australian subsidiary misleading consumers and the Australian public. We expect higher standards of behavior from all companies that supply to Australian consumers." Volkswagen is currently defending class action lawsuits in Federal Court, where representatives for the brand maintain "there is no defeat device" in local models. That is despite the company issuing a media release in October 2015 saying it received "notification from the head office of the Volkswagen Group that certain diesel vehicles sold in Australia were fitted with software that can affect their emissions during a dynometer test". Mr. Bartsch told reporters at a meeting in August many people misunderstood differences in emissions requirements between Australia and other countries. "The situations in Australia and the US, or EU counties and the US are very, very different," he said at the time. "Under Australian law we don't believe there is anything in our car which is illegal. "We have not broken any laws. "We do not believe that our cars have or will ever have broken environmental standards in Australia." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Questions Fairness of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Suzelle Smith -- ssmith@howarth-smith.com -- of Howarth & Smith and Virginia counsel, James Feinman, filed a Motion on behalf of Virginia VW owner, Ronald Fleshman, Jr., seeking leave of Court to take the depositions of those individuals designated as the representatives of Virginia in consumers in the Class Action lawsuit against Volkswagen, In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation action filed in federal court in San Francisco (Case No. 3:15-MD- 02672-CRB). While the $10 billion class action settlement on behalf of Volkswagen purchasers is being touted as fair and reasonable by the lawyers and government officials who brokered the deal with Volkswagen, the new filing by counsel for Mr. Fleshman on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Virginians, points out that given Volkswagen's admitted fraud on the public and intentional violation of U.S. law, the settlement lets VW completely off the hook with a huge discount. In testimony given to Congress, when asked if Volkswagen installed defeat device software "for the express purpose of defeating emissions controls," Michael Horn, the CEO of Volkswagen admitted that they were "installed for this purpose, yes, for this purpose." In cases of intentional fraud in the sale of motor vehicles, Virginia law allows a consumer to return the car to Volkswagen for a full refund of the purchase price, in addition to recovery of attorneys' fees and punitive damages to punish Volkswagen for its deliberate misconduct. However, the proposed class action settlement only requires Volkswagen to buyback these vehicles for a portion of the purchase price and has no punitive component, which calls into question the quality of representation that Virginia owners are receiving in this Class Action. Mr. Fleshman seeks to question the Virginians who are purporting to speak for and protect the rights of other Virginians like himself, who were not allowed to negotiate with Volkswagen on the settlement. Suzelle Smith, counsel for Mr. Fleshman, stated: "If the Virginia Class Representatives do not understand the terms of the settlement and how it compares to full compensation and penalties available under the law, then they cannot by definition protect the rights of other Virginians. This is what we have a right to find out by asking them under oath." The proposed settlement also violates the Clean Air Act as it purports to allow owners of these "dirty diesels" to continue driving their polluting cars in violation of various State Implementation Plans that have been approved by the EPA. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, thirteen states, including Virginia, have passed regulations making it illegal to drive cars that lack proper emission controls, such as these "dirty diesel" Volkswagens. Volkswagen's business plan to sell the illegal cars counted on the U.S. judicial system, government and private lawyers, not holding VW accountable fully under the available laws. For example, in filings made in lawsuits in Braunschweig, Germany, Volkswagen documents stated "the theoretical possibility that sanctions might be imposed due to a potential violation of U.S. environmental protection provisions seemed at the time to pose only a moderate cost risk." With liability and fraud admitted, counsel for Mr. Fleshman argue that Volkswagen should be required to return the purchase price of all the illegal vehicles, plus attorneys' fees, plus an amount to deter Volkswagen and others from any such conduct in the future. Further, all the illegal vehicles should be removed from the road immediately by VW. "There has never been a case in the United States where a major company has admitted that its business plans for marketing a product involved intentional illegal conduct and fraud. This case is unique and saying that it is the biggest settlement in history is not the right measure. If the government and the Court let VW off with this settlement, that unscrupulous business plan will have worked, and VW will profit by its conduct," said Suzelle Smith of Howarth & Smith. Ms. Smith asked: "What message does such a deal send to other manufacturers evaluating whether US laws have teeth? And do the Class Representatives actually understand that this is what they are consenting to for all other Virginia VW owners?" Lead Counsel who brokered the settlement deal for the class of consumers have asked for an undisclosed amount of attorneys' fees, at a minimum in excess of $340 million and potentially many times more. The hearing on Mr. Fleshman's motion to take these depositions is set for September 30, 2016, in Courtroom 6 of the Honorable Charles R. Beyer, located in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Objections to the settlement will be argued on October 18, 2016, before the Honorable Charles Breyer. Mr. Fleshman's Motion for Leave of Court to Depose Virginia Class Representatives can be found on the court's PACER system at https://www.pacer.gov/ WAKE FOREST: "Burkholder" Suit Transferred to N. Dist. of Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned CHRISTOPHER BURKHOLDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No.: 1:16-CV-1812 (S.D. Ind., July 7, 2016), was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit seeks to obtain redress for all persons allegedly injured by Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Wake Forest student athletes. Defendant Wake Forest University is a private university located at 1834 Wake Forest Road, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109. Defendant ACC is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office located at 4512 Weybridge Lane, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407. Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC 2859 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 Phone: 317.920.6400 Fax: 317.920.6405 E-mail: winingham@wkw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 123 Townsend Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Phone: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Block Wage Class Action Trial ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has rebuffed Wal-Mart Stores Inc's attempts to derail a trial scheduled to kick off in October to determine damages the retail giant owes to a class of its truck drivers in California who were not paid minimum wage. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on Aug. 30 rejected Wal-Mart's bid to decertify the class of drivers, approving the plaintiffs' plan to use a combination of hard data and representative sampling to prove damages. WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Sanctions Motions in "Cortina" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied motions to impose sanctions and granted Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, subject to certain conditions, of the case captioned, THAMAR SANTISTEBAN CORTINA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and LANG PHARMA NUTRITION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV- 02054-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal.). The case represents one battle in a multi-front litigation war between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. (Lang). Since late 2013, Plaintiff's counsel has brought four separate class actions in federal court against Lang and various retailers supplied by Lang, alleging generally that Lang's coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) dietary supplement is deceptively advertised in violation of various California and federal consumer protection statutes. At issue in the instant case are product claims that Lang and Wal-Mart make on the packaging of Wal-Mart's "Equate" brand CoQ10 supplement. Plaintiff Thamar Santisteban Cortina brought the putative class action on September 3, 2013, against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., alleging breach of warranty and deceptive advertising in connection with Wal-Mart's sale of a CoQ10 supplement supplied by Lang. Pending before the Court are three motions: -- On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff Cortina filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). -- On November 9, 2015, Lang filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and brought a motion seeking a staggering $575,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings. Lang argues primarily that the updated Chapter 2040 introduction and absorption disclaimer means that Plaintiff's counsel had no basis to continue litigating this case after the new introduction became final. -- Plaintiff then responded with her own motion for sanctions against Lang under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 arguing that Lang's motion for sanctions is frivolous. In her Order dated September 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hUKan2 from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found no basis to impose sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and that Plaintiff's counsel had sufficient foundation to continue litigating the case notwithstanding the USP absorption disclaimer. As to Plaintiff's motion for sanction, the Court found that Lang was not without factual foundation to argue that such conduct was part of an attempt to unreasonably and vexatiously prolong the proceedings. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), on two conditions: (1) that Plaintiff agree to use the existing discovery from the case in an anticipated state-court action, and (2) that Cortina sit for her deposition. If Plaintiffs were not amenable to these conditions, Plaintiffs must withdraw their motion by September 8, 2016. If Plaintiffs are amenable to these conditions, the deposition of Cortina must take place no later than September 22, 2016, and Plaintiffs must stipulate to using existing discovery from this case in the anticipated state-court action no later than September 22, 2016. The parties will notify the Court regarding the completion of Cortina's deposition no later than September 23, 2016. Once Defendants have deposed Cortina and the parties have stipulated to using existing discovery in future litigation of this case, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Thamar Santisteban Cortina is represented by Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq. -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- and Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD -- Ronald Marron, Esq. -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Alexis M. Wood, Esq. -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- and Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq. -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC Wal-Mart, Inc. is represented by David C. Allen, Esq. -- dallen@btlaw.com -- Kevin Dale Rising, Esq. -- kevin.rising@btlaw.com -- and Sarah Elizabeth Johnston, Esq. -- sjohnston@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. is represented by Sarah Elizabeth Johnston, Esq. -- sjohnston@btlaw.com -- and David C. Allen, Esq. -- dallen@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Debra M. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied Defendants' motion for reconsideration in the case captioned, ANTHONY MARTEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. ZACKERY WHEELER, WHEELER SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, INC., 1 WHEELER TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil No. 4:15-CV-104-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.) On February 12, 2016, the Court granted Anthony Martel Robinson's motion to remand, agreeing with Robinson that the notice of removal filed by 1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC (1 Wheeler), failed to satisfy the rule of unanimity. On February 25, 2016, "1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC's motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion to vacate order on remand and deny remand with prejudice" was filed, which seeks reconsideration of the remand order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion, Wheeler advances three arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration: (1) the unanimity rule does not apply because Zackery Wheeler was not properly served with process; (2) the basis for remand was improperly raised in the reply brief supporting the motion to remand; and (3) the Court erred in remanding without accepting evidentiary submissions. In her Order dated August 16, 2016 available at https://is.gd/CrXWWk from Leagle.com, Judge Brown held that 1 Wheeler has not pointed to an intervening change in the law or the existence of new evidence not previously available. 1 Wheeler also cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised or prejudiced in any way by the Court's consideration of Robinson's argument. Anthony Martel Robinson is represented by: William C. Bell, Esq. BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC 406 S. Pear Orchard Rd Ridgeland, MS 39157 Tel:(601)956-0360 Zackery Wheeler and Wheeler Supportive Services, Inc. are represented by Roy A. Smith, Jr., Esq. -- art.spratlin@butlersnow.com -- DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL 1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC is represented by Arthur D. Spratlin, Jr., Esq. -- rsmith@danielcoker.com -- and Keishunna R. Webster, Esq. -- keishunna.webster@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP XEROX STATE: Faces "Kelly" Suit in California Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned KELLY, MICHELLE AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. XEROX STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., DOES 1-100, and BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY, GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 554099 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016). Xerox State provides administrative and healthcare services. The company's services include solutions for human services such as eligibility determination and case management, electronic payment card services, customer care, and child support services; solutions for transportation including, electronic toll collection, parking management, weigh-in-motion, and credential verification; and public safety and justice solutions. * NLRB, EY Want Supreme Court to Review Class Action Waivers ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the National Labor Relations Board and professional services firm EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young, are the latest parties to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a growing circuit split over whether arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers are viable under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The Sept. 9 petition from the NLRB appealing a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Sept. 8 petition from EY appealing a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, come on the heels of another recent cert petition on this controversial legal topic that software company Epic Systems Corp. filed Sept. 2 to appeal a Seventh Circuit ruling. The labor board, along with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, have rejected employment agreements that require employees' claims be resolved individually and out of court. In contrast, the Eighth, Fifth and Second Circuits have upheld the validity of these agreements. The NLRB's attorneys argue in their petition in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA that class-action waivers' agreements violate Section 7's guarantee of employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activities, such as collective bargaining and working to improve their terms and conditions of employment. The attorneys wrote that Section 7 rights are a "core objective" of the National Labor Relations Act. They compared using employment agreements to waive these core rights to making employees sign a contract that allows them to be fired on the basis of age, despite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In EY's petition in Ernst & Young v. Morris, lawyers from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld as well as Williams & Connolly argued the opposite -- that without contrary word from Congress, employers' rights to use class-action waivers are protected under the Federal Arbitration Act, the law that establishes arbitration rights in the U.S. They wrote that the "NLRA's legislative history lacks any indication of a congressional command precluding courts from enforcing collective-action waivers according to their terms." * Proposed CFPB Changes May Cost Financial Firms $100MM a Year -------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Lehman, writing for The Payments Review, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) mission is "to make consumer financial markets work for consumers, responsible providers, and the economy as a whole." But it now appears the CFPB is expanding its mission to include more lucrative class action lawsuits. Most consumer banking agreements, including credit card and loan agreements, currently have a mandatory arbitration clause which specifically "bans consumers from seeking redress for potential issues in a court of law." In other words, consumers sign away their rights to file a lawsuit against a bank or credit union. The rationale behind this is that arbitration is a highly useful tool in stopping frivolous and very expensive lawsuits which, by the CFPB's own admission, typically result in no payments to consumers but results in huge payouts by the banks, with the money presumably going to the legal firms representing the class. To place the "right to bring suit" back in the hands of consumers, the CFPB proposes to prohibit language in agreements that bar consumers from filing or participating in a class action. Note that it does not ban arbitration. If accepted, the same proposal provides some specific estimates on the resulting consequences of this new ruling. The CFPB's research shows that there will be at least 6,042 more class actions filed against the 53,000 business covered by this rule in the first five years, expected cost to financial institutions more than $100 million a year in legal fees. What does this mean to credit unions? Budget for Legal Fees: If the CFPB proposed ruling is approved, credit unions will face attorney-driven class action suits, increasing legal fees to defend themselves. Budgeting for the inevitable frivolous lawsuits will be a necessary exercise each year. Insurance Expense: The CFPB estimates that new class action lawsuits will result in $342 million a year in judgments against financial institutions. The Bureau also notes that providers may attempt to manage the risks of increased class litigation exposure by opting for more comprehensive insurance coverage. Credit unions should inquire with commercial insurance agents regarding the coverage provided by existing general liability insurance, and consider riders that cover very large judgments against them. * Recent S.C. Court Rulings to Impact Securities Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Alla Zayenchik, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Court's rulings continue to have a significant impact on securities cases and class action litigation. The Supreme Court's current roster has several cases of interest to the institutional investor community. These cases raise important issues, ranging from defendants' attempts to end a class action by buying off a representative plaintiff, to standards of liability for insider trading, to the possibility that the long- running Halliburton securities case may revisit the high court for the third time and continue to define the counters of liability under the general antifraud provision of the federal securities laws. Supreme Court to Hear an Important Insider Trading Case Under the federal securities laws, it is forbidden to trade on the basis of material nonpublic information known only to company insiders. In United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2nd Cir. 2014), the Second Circuit severely hindered the government's ability to prosecute insider trading cases when it held that in order to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the receiving party knew that the insider shared material nonpublic information and also knew that the insider divulged the information to obtain a personal benefit in exchange for the tip. The practical implications of Newman are troubling, effectively destroying insider trading liability in all cases lacking a quid pro quo. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an insider trading issue that resulted in a split between the Ninth and Second Circuits. The issue, which is of great practical consequence, is whether the government must prove that an individual who disclosed inside information did so in exchange for a personal benefit. In welcome news to the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salman v. United States, an insider trading case that resulted in a split between the Ninth and Second Circuits. As in Newman, the issue at the heart of the Salman case is whether the government must prove, in order to secure a conviction, that an individual who disclosed inside information did so in exchange for a personal benefit. The defendant, Bassam Salman, was indicted for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud arising from an insider-trading scheme involving members of his extended family. His brother-in-law Maher Kara, a member of Citigroup's healthcare investment banking group, had been providing information about upcoming mergers and acquisitions involving Citigroup clients to his brother Mounir "Michael" Kara. Mr. Salman became close to the Kara family as a result of Maher's engagement to Salman's sister, and Michael shared with Mr. Salman the inside information provided to him by Maher, encouraging Salman to "mirror image" his trading activity. Salman booked trades through a brokerage account held by his wife's sister and her husband Karim Bayyouk. Salman, who was aware that the insider tips were coming from Maher, disclosed the information to Bayyouk and shared in the profits of Bayyouk's trading. As a result of the insider trading, Salman and Bayyouk's account skyrocketed from $396,000 to over $2 million. Relying on Newman, Mr. Salman argued that prosecutors presented insufficient evidence that Maher disclosed the confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit or that Salman knew of the benefit. Mr. Salman made this argument despite Maher's own testimony that he intended to "benefit" his brother and "fulfill" his needs. The Ninth Circuit rejected Salman's argument and sustained his conviction, finding that "the disclosure was intended as a gift of marketsensitive information," and that no evidence of a personal benefit to Maher was necessary. To hold otherwise, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, would yield a perverse result by allowing "a corporate insider or other person in possession of confidential and proprietary information [to] be free to disclose that information to her relatives, and they would be free to trade on it, provided only that she asked for no tangible compensation in return." With the upcoming argument in the Salman case, the Supreme Court is expected to provide clarity as to whether an intention to benefit a family member, friend or acquaintance is sufficient to establish insider trading liability. An Unaccepted Offer of Settlement Does Not Moot Class Claims The Supreme Court recently addressed a question of significant practical import to class action litigation: whether a defendant's settlement offer under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, providing complete relief to a representative or "named" plaintiff -- but not to the rest of the plaintiff class -- can moot the entire class action lawsuit. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the class consisted of individuals who received Navy recruiting text messages on their cell phones despite having not opted-in to receive such messages as required by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The named plaintiff, Jose Gomez, brought a class action lawsuit against the advertising agency that was sending these unsolicited text messages. Mr. Gomez sought $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA, along with treble damages, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees. Before the case was certified as a class action, Campbell made a Rule 68 offer to settle Mr. Gomez's individual claims. Campbell did not, however, make a similar offer to settle the claims of the rest of the prospective class. After Mr. Gomez refused Campbell's settlement offer, Campbell moved to dismiss under Rule 68. The district court denied Campbell's motion to dismiss, holding that the company could not "make an end-run around a class action simply by virtue of a facile procedural 'gotcha,' i.e., the conveyance of a Rule 68 offer of judgment to 'pick off' the named plaintiff prior to the filing of a class certification motion." Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 805 F. Supp. 2d 923, 930 (C.D. Cal. 2011). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision below and Campbell then appealed to the Supreme Court. In January 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's opinion. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that "an unaccepted settlement offer has no force. Like other unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists." Campbell, 136 S. Ct at 667. The Supreme Court pointed out that a ruling in defendant's favor would inappropriately "place the defendant in the driver's seat" and found that an unaccepted offer of settlement to the lead plaintiff cannot moot a class claim. Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion in which he agreed that an offer of complete relief does not moot a claim, but based the conclusion on common law principles rather than on Rule 68 or on contract law principles. In January 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that "an unaccepted (settlement) offer has no force" and cannot moot a class claim. In contrast, Chief Justice Roberts issued a dissent suggesting that the majority's decision was limited to its facts and that the outcome might have been different had the defendant actually deposited the funds with the district court. Chief Justice Robert's dissent invites defendants to test the limits of the Court's ruling in Campbell by attempting to "pick off" named plaintiffs via a payment that purports to provide "complete relief" to the named plaintiff only. Indeed, this very scenario was addressed by the Ninth Circuit in a case decided after Campbell. In Chen, et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1425869, at *11 (9th Cir. April 12, 2016), the Ninth Circuit found that a putative class action was not moot where the defendant deposited the settlement offer funds in an escrow account to be paid upon entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that even though the money had been deposited into an escrow account, the plaintiff had not actually received the money and the defendant had the ability to reclaim the money if no judgment was entered. It remains to be seen whether courts outside the Ninth Circuit will adopt a similar view. Halliburton II provided defendants with the opportunity to present evidence challenging whether alleged mis-representations had an impact on a stock's price. Defendants argued that such evidence should be considered at the class certification stage, but the Court ruled that questions of materiality should be reserved for the merits stage. Defendants have appealed the issue and the Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear it. "Halliburton III" on the Horizon? In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the third appeal of the long-running securities class action, Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. ("Halliburton"). Halliburton last visited the Supreme Court in 2014 ("Halliburton II") when the Court refused to overturn the presumption of class-wide reliance established in Basic v. Levinson, 485 US 224 (1988). In that appeal, the Court upheld the "fraud on the market" theory, a foundational principle of securities litigation, which holds that investors are entitled to rely on the integrity of the price of securities that trade on well-developed markets such as the New York Stock Exchange. However, the Court also afforded defendants an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance through a showing of direct or indirect evidence that an alleged misrepresentation did not have an impact on the stock price. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Halliburton II, the trial court provided defendants with the opportunity to present evidence of lack of price impact. However, the judge determined that the evidence offered by the defendants was inadmissible at the class certification stage. The defendants appealed, arguing that the court should have considered the evidence at class certification even though it went to the merits of the claim. As many commentators have noted, Halliburton II appears to be at odds with the Court's previous ruling in the Amgen case that questions of materiality -- including lack of price impact -- are not appropriately addressed at the class certification stage and should be reserved for the merits stage of the litigation process. The Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal in order to clarify what types of evidence can be presented at the class certification stage and what types of evidence must be reserved for later stages of the litigation. This appeal gives rise to the possibility that Halliburton will revisit the Supreme Court for a third time and require the Court to reconcile its opinions in Halliburton II and Amgen. If the arguments advanced by the defendants are accepted, it would increase the hurdles for investors to maintain securities fraud cases as class actions. * Spike in Securities Class Actions Won't Hit D&O Insurance Space ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Gusman, writing for Property Casualty360, reports that while regulators remain active and securities class action filings have come roaring back, for Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability insurance it's still a buyer's market. With plenty of capacity, a willingness on the part of underwriters to compete aggressively and brokers working hard to get good deals in place for their clients, "It's definitely a great time to be a buyer," says Chad Berberich, president of RLI Executive Products Group. "I would say the market is about as soft as it can get." Speaking in particular to excess public D&O and excess Side A coverage, he adds, "I've been doing this 20 years, and it's probably as soft as I've ever seen it." Rob Yellen, executive vice president, FINEX NA at Willis Towers Watson, agrees that competition within the D&O marketplace is particularly intense at the excess levels. "On larger programs, you can't hit [pricing] floors," he says. Mr. Yellen says he sees no reason to believe the market will become less competitive in the near future. Mr. Berberich explains why: "There's a reason capacity is coming into this space. It's been very good business over time, historically. The loss ratios have been pretty darn good, especially on Side A business. "And so, it's an attractive market," he adds, "until the losses start coming." Losses may be coming from a familiar place if securities class action filing figures from 2016's first half carry through to the end of the year: Cornerstone Research's Midyear Assessment shows 119 new federal class action securities filings for the first six months of the year, 32 more than 2015's first half and 27% above the 1997-2015 semiannual average of 94 filings. In a July blog post, Mr. Yellen wrote, "The data from the first half of 2016 suggests we can expect securities class actions to remain the predominant driver of D&O claim severity." "It's not a trend," Mr. Yellen stresses. "It's too short of a period to say it's a trend. But it is concerning." The claims picture Although competition may be intensifying, some experts point out that the race for D&O premiums isn't wholly new. "Following the financial crisis, we obviously saw new markets capitalizing on the regulatory overhaul of the public marketplace," says Ziad Kubursi, senior vice president, Management Liability and Financial Institutions at CNA. "A lot of markets jumped in and put up some capacity." Colin Daly, executive vice president of JLT Specialty USA, goes back even further. "We've been in a soft market for close to 10 years in some form or fashion," he says, noting that while some industries within D&O saw hardening during the financial crisis, many stayed competitive. And it's just been downward since then."How much further can it go, is the question," he adds, "and I don't know the answer to that." There is some good news for D&O carriers: Other types of legal actions showed lessened activity through the first half of 2016. Derivative shareholder lawsuits fell 34 percent year over year to 60, while merger objection suits dropped 17 percent year over year to 87. Even with increased securities class action activity, Mr. Berberich says carriers on the Excess side have been somewhat shielded. "If you look at the statistics," he says, "the number of securities lawsuits has stayed high, and trending higher for 2016. But the jumbo losses just don't seem to be happening like they have in the past." Cornerstone's report notes dollar losses from mega-filings were notably smaller than historical averages, even while smaller class actions continued to increase. "It's been a favorable claim environment in the last few years. Very few lawsuits get at those big Side A towers," says Mr. Berberich. "So folks who write a lot of Side A business are reaping the benefits of low loss levels over the last few years." On the primary side, the picture is a bit different. Mr. Daly makes a point similar to Mr. Berberich's, noting the new claims landscape for D&O where there are fewer "big claims that will burn down a tower," and instead more claims that are mostly captured in the primary and first excess layers of D&O programs. As a result, he says the primary market has not seen softening to the degree Excess has. "We do see pockets of decreases here and there, but we also see pockets of increases," Daly says of the primary market. However, Michael Piccione, senior vice president of the Public D&O Division at Allied World, says he is just now seeing pricing in the primary space for existing accounts come under pressure. He says the pressure is driven by "a slowdown in D&O new business opportunities generated from IPOs, which are down 58 percent year- to-date; the impact of quarterly rate reductions in the high single digits on excess pricing; and aggressive targeting by new entrants." Figures cited by Sarah Downey, D&O product leader at Marsh, show deterioration on the primary side -- not to the degree of declines for excess layers. She says Marsh clients are getting average rate decreases of 4.5 percent on primary layers in Q2, and decreases of 7.5 percent for total programs. She adds Q2 2016 marked the seventh consecutive quarter in which Marsh clients saw total program average rate decreases. Mr. Piccione cautions some of the new carriers competing on price in the primary market: "Adoption of an aggressive primary strategy may backfire on some of the newer entrants . . . as many have not established a well-diversified portfolio of Excess and Side A to withstand the hits of writing primary. "As such, insured buyers should be mindful of these risks when dealing with new entrants and take caution," he adds. Daly says buyers are wary of significantly aggressive carriers, questioning whether they want those particular carriers on their primary layer. Bill Passannante, a shareholder at Anderson Kill (a law firm that represents policyholders), says a D&O claim that might be ordinary for an established carrier could "get handled oddly" by a new entrant with a claim department unfamiliar with the complicated nature of D&O risks. Hardening competition, soft rates New markets continue to show not only interest in D&O, but also a willingness to compete hard for it. "We've certainly seen increased competition for the business, both from the long-term players and from the new entrants that have come in the past few years that are trying to write more business," says Shanda Davis, D&O product manager for Travelers. Daly says some new entrants will offer "significant decreases on programs, and that can be in the primary, too." Regarding new entrants' aggressiveness, Mr. Kubursi says it's about cash-flow underwriting: "They're buying as much market share as they can when they can, with very little focus on what that means from a loss standpoint." He notes that new entrants over the years have run the gamut, from mega-companies to foreign insurers looking to expand into the U.S. Daly says longer-term carriers are "consistent on their pricing," although Mr. Berberich says veteran markets are responding to new entrants by "flexing their muscles and being aggressive." SEC investigations up The intense competition and softening rate environment comes not only as securities class action activity appears to be picking up once again, but also as regulatory scrutiny of public companies continues at an elevated level -- a continuation of the post- financial-crisis zeal among regulators. Edward Kirk, a partner at Clyde & Co., a law firm that represents insurers, says the numbers of investigations and regulatory actions are up. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions were up 7 percent in 2015, he says, to 807. The length of the investigations was up to 21 months on average. "I think it's probably safe to say if the length of investigations increases like that, we'll probably see elevated costs and more exposure for D&O insurers from SEC investigations," says Kirk. Daly adds that Mary Jo White, chair of the SEC, is also targeting smaller infractions and smaller companies. In general, he says, the SEC is "just much more active in chasing companies as well as individuals." The Department of Justice is getting into the act in a big way as well. Kirk and others point to the "Yates Memo," released In September 2015, which calls for the DOJ to focus more on holding corporate executives accountable rather than just the company itself. In the memo, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates writes, "One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing. Such accountability is important for several reasons: it deters future illegal activity, it incentivizes changes in corporate behavior, it ensures that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions, and it promotes the public's confidence in our justice system." That increased regulatory scrutiny is not just impacting the potential loss landscape, but coverage demands as well -- and in a competitive D&O market, carriers are responding. "Companies are interested in coverage for regulatory investigations, and the market has responded with some carriers offering an endorsement to the primary D&O policy to provide coverage for an SEC investigation of a corporate entity when the company has a related securities claim," Mr. Piccione says. Mr. Kubursi says directors and officers now have a significant fear of being exposed personally and financially, leading to more demand for Side A coverage and for higher limits. He notes that CNA just came out with an enhanced form developed in part in response to the Yates Memo. The improved Side A policy provides two reinstatements, so if limits are exhausted on a Side A policy, he explains, they can be reinstated if there is another director or officer named in the case not directly tied to the same action. Davis says Travelers has recently launched a new public D&O policy that provides affirmative coverage for certain nominal defendant expenses and claimant attorney fees that are awarded in non- monetary settlements in securities claims. She says Travelers and others also have solutions to give coverage for certain entity- investigation expenses. Even outside the U.S., the D&O market is seeing innovations. AIG UK announced an addition to its D&O policies that will cover costs not paid for by the company for legal challenges in the event of permanent residency applications being rejected pre-Brexit, and the subsequent challenges to repatriation orders post-Brexit. In the private D&O market, George Schalick, vice president of the Management & Professional Liability Division of Philadelphia Insurance Cos., says opportunities are increasing. It has traditionally been a hard sell for D&O and EPLI, he notes, but more buyers purchase the coverage every month now. All told, the D&O market is a place where everyone seemingly wants to play, but because of that, what makes the market attractive is, to some degree, diluted. As Mr. Kubursi notes, expense ratios are up, commission expenses are up and cost of claims are up. "All those increased costs on a very low pricing model, with much higher severity and frequency on losses -- that's an imperfect market," he adds. ********* 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 * * *