/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 250 Headlines 132 NINTH AVENUE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. of New York 1317 RESTAURANT: "Guevara" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Wise" ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers Fund Files Suit Over Pravastatin AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Mass. Shareholder Class Action ALABAMA: Inmate Testifies in Mental Health Class Suit ALLIED HOME: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Spence" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANNAPOLIS ROAD: "Loeza" Files Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws ARLINGTON COUNTY: "Battaglini" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Faces "Boucher" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin ATTENDS HEALTHCARE: "Storey" Suit Over Adult Diapers Dismissed B/E AEROSPACE: Undervalued Merger Deal Hit in "Dodds" Case BANDAS LAW: Edelson Suit Alleges Racketeering, Extortion BANK OF AMERICA: Riviera Police Fund Files Anti-trust Case BANK OF AMERICA: Discovery Bid in Alaska Pension Fund Suit Nixed BARNHILL CONTRACTING: "Pittman" Race Bias & Wages Suit Dismissed BEHR PAINT: Faces "McBain" Suit Under FLSA and Calif. Labor Code BMW AUSTRALIA: To Pay Back $72 Million to Ordinary Car Buyers CACH LLC: Bid to Arbitrate Granted in Part in "Snyder" Suit CALIFORNIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Raisin Growers' Suits CANADA: Former Sailor to Launch Sexual Harassment Class Action CANADA: Inuvik Native Band Identifies Members Qualified in Suit CARNEGIE PARK: Judge Favors Dismissal Over Injunction CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces "Shepard" Suit in Dist. Minnesota CEVA LOGISTICS: "McDonald" Files Suit Under California Labor Code CHER OIL: Cushing-Area Residents File Class Action Over Quake CIMIC: Faces New Class Action, February 22 Hearing Set CONN APPLIANCES: Judge Recommends Dismissal in "Alvarado" Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Filed in Receipt Class Action DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harnen" Action Seeks Overtime Pay DR REDDY'S LABORATORIES: PA Teachers Fund Files Anti-Trust Suit EL TAMARINDO: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA FAITH CONSTRUCTION: "Eroglu" Action Seeks Overtime Pay FOUR CORNERS: "Badger" Suit Alleges ADA Violation GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims GEORGIA: DJJ Faces Suit for Civil Rights Act Violation HESO INC: Faces "Lopes" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL HITACHI METALS: Price-fixing of Brake Hoses Alleged by Emerald HUA DA INC: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District of New York ICE CREAM HOUSE: "Galicia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations INFINITE CARE: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement INTERNATIONAL GENERAL: OT Pay Recovery Sought in "Bilbao" Suit JVK OPERATIONS: Guevara Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under NY Labor Law KAISER PERMANENTE: No Violation in Anti-Assignment, Judge Says KENTUCKY: "Woodcock" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky MACROCURE LTD: "Lax" Suit Alleges Securities Violations in Merger MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Nixes Fans' Suit Over Safety Net MARS INC: E.D. Pa. Judge Sends FACTA Suit to S.D.N.Y. MCKESSON CORP: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages MDL 1917: Chunghwa Settlement Allocation Plan Has Final OK MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Elfaridi" Suit Alleges Defective Sun Roof MERCER HEALTH: "Stapf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law MIDLAND CREDIT: "Lopera" Suit Can't Proceed as Class MINOR LEAGUE: Establishes Political Committee to Fight Suit MNM PROPERTIES: "Saucedo" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL NAPOLI'S PASTARIA: "Crespo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Alleges Tax Fraud NBTY INC: Court Trims Claims in "Porter" Suit NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Huang" Class Suit in E.D. New York NZK PRODUCTIONS: Eckert Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner Loses Bid to Compel Production of Docs OMNI LIMOUSINE: Mooney Suit Stayed Pending McSwiggin Case OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit for Drug Overpricing OSHKOSH, WI: Released Prisoner May Amend Complaint PATRICK M. CONNELLY: "Allah-Mensah" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid PILOT CORP: 11th Cir. Confirms Original Jurisdiction Under CAFA PREMIERE NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action QUALITY SERVICE: Overtime Pay Demanded in "Casasus" Labor Suit RALEIGH HEART: Patient Exposure Cases Obtain Class Action Status RHODE ISLAND: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gemmell" Class Action ROYAL BANK: Reaches Settlement With Three of Five Investor Groups REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Trash Bill Overcharges RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Sekula Files Appeal in 11th Cir. SAINT-GOBAIN: Ground Water Contamination Alleged in "Dowling" Suit SALEM INTERNATIONAL: W.Va. High Court Sends Suit to Arbitration SANTA FE NATURAL: False Advertising Suite Filed by "Hebert" SCOTT'S BREWERY: Judge Spurns Application Approach, Tosses Suit SI WIRELESS: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois STAR INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in "Sheehan" Suit SUPERIOR TANK: Miranda et al. Allege Violations of FLSA TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: "Kirk" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Browder" Class Suit in N.D. Texas TRUMP UNIVERSITY: For-Profit Colleges Optimistic Despite Case TURN AROUND: "Kinslow" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Wages, OT Work TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Arkansas UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Mastra" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations UNITED STATES: DOL Requests Expedited Ruling on Injunction Appeal US CABLE CORP: "Bandsuh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Hospital Employees' Suit WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Nedd" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA WYANDOTTE, MI: Tax Statute Deprives Dist. Court of Jurisdiction ZIMMER BIOMET: January 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set * CFPB's Effort to Curb Mandatory Arbitration May Face Challenges ********* 132 NINTH AVENUE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 132 Ninth Avenue Limited Liability Company. The case is captioned Edwin Zayas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 132 Ninth Avenue Limited Liability Company, and DLP Group, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09496 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2016). DLP Group is doing business in a construction-related industry. The Plaintiff appears pro se. 1317 RESTAURANT: "Guevara" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Najera Guevara, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1317 Restaurant Co LLC, Jonathan Bash and Mark Bash, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09442 (S.D. N.Y., December 7, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law, as well as spread of hours and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Najera is a former employee of 1317 Restaurant Co LLC which operates as Fratelli Pizza & Wine Bar, an Italian restaurant owned by Jonathan Bash and Mark Bash, located at 1317 First Avenue, New York, New York 10021. He worked as a dishwasher, delivery worker and porter. Najera worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked as well as spread of hours premium. He also alleges that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time-keeping. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Wise" ------------------------------------------------------------ Robin Linley, Esq. -- robin.linley@blakes.com -- and Jessica Lam, Esq. -- jessica.lam@blakes.com -- of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in a recent class action decision, Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited (Wise), Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in advance of certification, concluding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because there was insufficient evidence of general causation. The decision highlights the potential for defendants to use of summary judgment to resolve a class action before certification in appropriate cases. BACKGROUND Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) is the manufacturer of a topical ointment known as AndroGel(R), a testosterone replacement therapy for the treatment of hypogonadism (testosterone deficiency) in men. The representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Abbott alleging that AndroGel causes serious cardiovascular (CV) events, such as heart attacks and strokes; and that AndroGel was sold by Abbott as a remedy for "LowT", an alleged fabricated disease made up by Abbott to sell more of its product. In selling AndroGel for LowT, the plaintiffs alleged that the drug had no therapeutic benefits, and that Abbott had therefore been unjustly enriched and should compensate the class members for their economic losses incurred in purchasing the product. The plaintiffs also sought recovery of damages from the defendant based on the allegations of failure to warn and the novel claim of "waiver of tort". Abbott denied all claims of negligence, and submitted that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed on the grounds that they could not prove general causation, which was a constituent element in all of their product liability claims. Conversely, the plaintiffs submitted that if they won, the case would be appropriate for a partial summary judgment in their favour -- with the result that three of the five certification criteria would be satisfied. Significantly, the parties filed more than 11,000 pages in materials for the motion, including 22 expert reports from nine experts. There were six days of oral argument. The Court held that there were four major issues on the motion. The Court's findings with respect to each of these issues are briefly canvassed below. DECISION Is the Case Appropriate for Summary Judgment? The Court held that at the heart of the "no genuine issue requiring a trial" test for granting summary judgment is the need to undertake a "judicial gut check." The motions judge must be of the view that sufficient evidence has been presented on all relevant points to allow him or her to draw the inferences necessary to make dispositive findings. Justice Perell concluded that the case at bar was an appropriate case for summary judgment because he had "no doubt" that he had sufficient evidence on all relevant points and both sides had put forward sufficient evidence to make their respective arguments about the dispositive issues. Is There a Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial About General Causation? On this issue, the Court held that a constituent element of the tort of negligence is that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. The Court went on to discuss two aspects to the proof of causation: "general causation", which concerns whether the defendant's misconduct has the capacity to cause the alleged harm; and "specific causation", which concerns whether the general capacity to harm was actualized in the particular case. The defendant's relied heavily on the landmark decision Andersen v. St. Jude Medical Inc. (St. Jude) to argue that in order to meet the legal standard of proof based on a balance of probabilities, a minimum statistical risk ratio of 2.0 must be demonstrated in order to establish general causation. The Court, however, disagreed. First, the Court distinguished St. Jude by holding that the 2.0 risk ratio in St. Jude arose in the context of the court's discussion of specific causation, which Justice Perell held "has little to do with the risk ratio threshold for proof of general causation". Second, he was not prepared to find that legal proof of general causation should be confined to statistical analysis alone. While the Court was prepared to find on the evidence that there was a genuine issue about general causation -- in particular, whether AndroGel could cause serious CV events -- using its fact- finding powers under the summary judgment rules, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish general causation on a balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the Court found that the case at bar was not a case that permitted an inference of general causation to be drawn from the evidence of association and biological plausibility. None of the experts or the regulators were prepared to commit to an opinion that the association between AndroGel and serious CV events was causal, and the plaintiffs' experts admitted that "association" does not establish "causation". Applying a "but-for" test, based on the evidence, the Court was not convinced that AndroGel could cause heart attacks or other serious CV events on a balance of probabilities and concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial about general causation. Is There a Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial About the Duty to Warn? The Court held that an association between a product and a dangerous condition may give rise to a duty to warn on the part of a manufacturer even if the association has not been demonstrated to be causal. While the Court did not make a finding about whether or not the defendants breached a duty to warn (while noting that the evidence tended to favour the view that the warnings were adequate), the Court held that the plaintiffs' failure to warn claim must still fail, because even assuming a breach of the standard of care, they failed to prove general causation. A defendant's failure to warn that causes no harm is not negligent. Further, the Court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial about the duty to warn because the plaintiffs were unable to prove that any harm was caused by the breach of that duty. Unjust Enrichment and Pure Economic Loss As a factual matter, the Court found that on the evidentiary record produced, physicians were diagnosing their patients as having LowT on a set of symptoms and prescribed them AndroGel as the treatment for that diagnosis. In these circumstances, the Court concluded ". . . almost by definition it cannot be said that a worthless good was being sold". As a legal matter, the Court found that the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim failed because following Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, there is no pure economic loss for selling worthless or shoddy goods that are not dangerous for the uses for which they are sold. AndroGel was not a shoddy good and any of the dangers in its use, insofar as they were known to exist, had been disclosed in the warnings provided. Given that general causation had not been established, the Court found that there was no predicate wrongdoing upon which to base the novel claim of waiver of tort. IMPLICATIONS The decision in Wise demonstrates that summary judgment can be an effective tool for defendants in the resolution of a class proceeding, in appropriate cases. Wise further suggests that Ontario courts are entirely embracing the "culture shift" called for in Hryniak v. Mauldin, and the move away from the conventional trial and a broad interpretation of the summary judgment rules in the interests of fairness and proportionality. In the wake of Wise, defendants will want to carefully consider seeking leave to bring a summary judgment motion before certification. ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers Fund Files Suit Over Pravastatin --------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., APOTEX CORP., DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC., GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA, LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., AND ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06321-TON (E.D. Pa., December 6, 2016), alleges conspiracy among Defendants to raise the prices of pravastatin sodium tablets and to allocate markets and customers for pravastatin in the United States. Defendants are among the world's largest generic drug manufacturers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Mass. Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novelion Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing new standards of care for individuals living with rare diseases (the "Company"), on Dec. 5 disclosed that on December 3, 2016, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, an indirect, wholly- owned subsidiary of Novelion, entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action shareholder lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Class Action Litigation"). The agreement provides for an aggregate settlement payment by or on behalf of Aegerion of $22.25 million. The Company expects $22 million of the settlement will be funded by Aegerion's insurance proceeds and $250,000 will be funded by Aegerion. The settlement would include the dismissal of all claims against Aegerion and the named individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The settlement remains subject to further documentation, court approval, and other customary conditions, including Aegerion's right to terminate the settlement in the event an agreed upon percentage of class members do not participate. "We are encouraged by our continued execution on yet another important strategic initiative," said Chief Executive Officer Mary Szela. "Under Novelion's new management team, which has been significantly strengthened by recent hires in key leadership positions, the Company's subsidiary, Aegerion, has now entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Class Action Litigation, demonstrably reduced its cost structure, and stabilized its balance sheet via the QLT merger." Novelion also announced plans to undertake a reverse stock split of its common shares on the basis of a consolidation ration of one for five (1:5) (the "Consolidation"). The Consolidation is expected to take effect on or about December 16, 2016. The purpose of the Consolidation, which was approved by Novelion's new board of directors, is to increase the per share trading price of Novelion's common shares in order to eliminate non-fundamentally related trading restrictions on many investors. Ms. Szela continued, "The reverse stock split is driven purely from a position of revitalized strength, and aims to provide a compelling investment opportunity to a larger breadth of institutional investors that may otherwise be prohibited from investing in lower price-per-share equities." The Company will seek approval from the Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX") to effect the Consolidation and has provided notification of the Consolidation to NASDAQ. Subject to TSX approval, every five common shares issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective date of the Consolidation will automatically convert into one common share. As a result of the Consolidation, the approximate number of issued and outstanding common shares will be reduced from 92,653,562 to 18,530,712. Each shareholder's percentage ownership in the Company and proportional voting power will remain unchanged after the Consolidation, except for minor changes and adjustments resulting from the treatment of fractional shares. No fractional shares will be issued in connection with the Consolidation and any fractional shares that would have otherwise been issued will be rounded down to the nearest whole number, therefore no cash will be received in lieu of fractional shares. Proportional adjustments will be made to the Company's outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock units, as well as to the conversion rate for the outstanding convertible notes of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals. About Novelion Therapeutics Inc. Novelion Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing new standards of care for individuals living with rare diseases. The Company seeks to advance its portfolio of rare disease therapies by investing in science and clinical development. Novelion has a diversified commercial portfolio through its indirect subsidiary, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which includes MYALEPT(R) and JUXTAPID(R), and is also developing zuretinol acetate for the treatment of inherited retinal disease caused by underlying mutations in RPE65 or LRAT genes. Aegerion is planning to file a Marketing Authorization Application in the EU in December 2016 for metreleptin to treat generalized lipodystrophy and a subset of partial lipodystrophy. Aegerion recently received approval for lomitapide in Japan and plans to launch in January of 2017. ALABAMA: Inmate Testifies in Mental Health Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Davis, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reports that an inmate testified on Dec. 5 about the lack of mental health treatment he has received in his six years of incarceration, signaling the first day of trial for a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all Alabama inmates. Jamie Wallace, a 24-year-old housed at Donaldson Correctional Facility who suffers from bipolar disorder, ADHD, mild retardation and schizophrenia, testified that he was not asked about his mental health status when he first entered prison. He said he was taken off his Wellbutrin prescription, which helped him not hear voices in his head, and placed on a different medication for a 30-day trial turn. "(Physicians at Donaldson) told me they couldn't afford Wellbutrin," Mr. Wallace said. The new medications caused his temperament to decline. He testified that he cut his wrists and neck multiple times and tried to hang himself, and that an officer enabled him to do so by providing him a razor. "(Officer Hill) said, 'You want to kill yourself? Here, do it with this,'" he said. Mitesh Shah, an attorney representing the defendants, began laying the groundwork to impeach Mr. Wallace as a credible witness. "You testified that you haven't seen a psychiatrist in six months. That's not true, is it? You have met with psychiatrists and counselors many many times, haven't you?" Mr. Shah asked. Mr. Wallace answered that he was only seen by mental health professionals after he had been put in a crisis cell. "Until I come to that crisis cell (mental health professionals) ain't coming to see me worth a damn, sir," Mr. Wallace said. Shah did not get to complete his cross-examination. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson had Mr. Wallace removed from the witness stand so Wallace could "calm down." The litigation began in 2014, when the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program filed a 180-page complaint against ADOC, then-ADOC Commissioner Kim Thomas (current Commissioner Jefferson Dunn has since inherited the suit) and Ruth Naglich, ADOC associate commissioner of health services. The case has been split into two phases: one regarding physical health claims and one regarding mental health claims. In March, the parties reached an agreement on the non-mental health claims. The part of the trial that began on Dec. 5 focuses solely on ADOC's mentally ill inmates, which the plaintiffs' attorneys allege have been egregiously neglected. The defendants have denied the allegations, stating in a court filing that the plaintiffs' complaint "reveals inflammatory, self- serving statements that inaccurately characterize inmates' medical and mental health conditions . . . and demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of technical medical or mental health terminology." ADOC also stated through court filings that its cooperation with the settlement should not be construed as an admission of any legal violation. "To the contrary, ADOC denies every material allegation of the complaint," read part of the settlement. The complaint, which refers to ADOC statistics, says nearly 40 percent of inmates has some form of mental illness. That's nearly double what Alabama's general population experiences. Wanda Laird, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Health Alabama, estimates one in five people in the state has suffered from a mental illness during their lifetime. ALLIED HOME: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Judy Cates of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reversed a lower court's order granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case entitled ROSEMARY KEEFE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION and ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITALCORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, No. 5-15-0360 Defendants Allied Home Mortgage Corporation and Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation were in the business of brokering mortgages and providing mortgage related services in several states in the United States, including Illinois. Plaintiff, Rosemary Keefe, contacted the defendants for assistance with the refinancing of a loan on her property in Berwyn, Illinois. On May 18, 1999, Keefe signed several refinancing documents, which included an arbitration rider and two months later, the parties closed on the loan. On September 2, 2004, Keefe filed a class action complaint against the defendants. Keefe alleged that the defendants engaged third parties to provide certain loan-related services, such as credit reports and appraisals, and paid the fees charged for those services. On December 15, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings based upon the arbitration rider. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition and asserted that the arbitration rider was unenforceable because it was cost-prohibitive, unsupported by consideration, against public policy, and procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Defendants appeal the denial and in an opinion issued on July 10, 2009, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, found that the arbitration rider was supported by adequate consideration but that the provision prohibiting class arbitrations was substantively unconscionable. The court also determined that the provision prohibiting class arbitrations was severable from the remainder of the arbitration rider, leaving the agreement to arbitrate in place. The case was remanded to the circuit court with directions to sever the provision prohibiting class actions and to enforce the remainder of the arbitration clause. Within days after the opinion was issued, the parties' chosen arbitrator, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), became embroiled in a controversy. The Minnesota Attorney General filed a complaint against the NAF. On July 28, 2009, the NAF entered into a consent decree with the Minnesota Attorney General, and agreed to stop accepting all consumer cases for arbitration. On September 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion in the circuit court, and argued that the arbitration rider was unenforceable because the NAF was no longer able to arbitrate this dispute. On October 27, 2009, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition and argued that the unavailability of the NAF did not render the arbitration rider unenforceable because the NAF was not designated as the exclusive arbitral forum and because the circuit court was authorized to appoint a substitute arbitrator under section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). On January 7, 2011, the defendants filed a second motion to compel arbitration. On October 14, 2014, the circuit court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Appeal followed. Justice Cates reversed the order of the circuit court granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration and remanded the suit for further proceedings. Justice Cates held that the unavailability of the NAF and the absence of the 1999 NAF Code leave the parties without their designated arbitrator and the rules specifically chosen to govern the arbitration. The designation of the NAF as the arbitral forum and the term mandating use of the 1999 NAF Code were integral to the parties' agreement to arbitrate. The arbitration rider specifically omitted the procedural rules set forth in sections 5 through 16 of the FAA, leaving the court without any rules by which this arbitration should proceed. It is not within the province of the appellate court, or the trial court, to rewrite the arbitration rider to reinstate omitted terms or to add new terms. Such actions would violate basic rules of contract law and run contrary to the clear intent of the parties as expressed by the plain language in the arbitration rider. The unavailability of the NAF as an arbitral forum and the absence of the 1999 NAF Code render the parties' agreement to arbitrate unenforceable. A copy of Justice Cates's opinion dated November 28, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/BdMSRG from Leagle.com. Attorneys for Appellant: Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq. James J. Rosemergy, Esq. Carey, Danis & Lowe 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-725-7700 Facsimile: 314-678-3401 Attorney for Appellees: Michael A. Brockland, Esq. Cosgrove Law Group, LLC Pierre Laclede Tower II, 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-563-2490 Facsimile: 314-968-7371 AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Spence" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerigas Propane, Inc. The case is styled GERALD SPENCE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-102871 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 8, 2016). Amerigas markets retail propane to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and motor fuel propane customers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vecchi, Jill Marie, Esq. The Turley Law Firm, APLC 7428 Trade St San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com ANNAPOLIS ROAD: "Loeza" Files Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESTELA PONCE LOEZA, 5634 Whitfield Chapel Road, Apt. 303 Lanham, MD 20706, (Prince George's County), Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. ANNAPOLIS ROAD SERVICES, INC., 7303 Hanover Parkway, Suite A, Greenbelt, MD 20770 (Prince George's County), Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03901- GJH (D. Md., December 6, 2016), was brought to recover damages for Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant owns and operates Prince George's County roadside service station. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zelikovitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC 519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 803-6083 Fax: (202) 683-6102 E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com ARLINGTON COUNTY: "Battaglini" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Battaglini, Matthew Cobb, Jose Ortiz, Bosephus Bennett, Trevor Burrell, Norman Clark, Claude Conde, John Delaney, Jr., William Earley, Randall Higgins, Jeffrey Kramer, Joseph Ligthfoot, Geoffrey Mayer, Robert Patterson, Robert Pye, Myron Richardson, Nicola Salameh, Thomas Shamblin, Tiffanye Wesley, George Williams and Michael Woodson, Plaintiff, v. County of Arlington, VA, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01510, (E.D. Va., December 6, 2016), bring this collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated because of unlawful deprivation of plaintiffs' rights to overtime compensation as well as to seek compensation, damages, equitable and other relief available under Virginia Code Section 9.1-700, et seq. Plaintiffs have been employed by the County of Arlington, Virginia, assigned to one or more of the County's 10 fire stations. Plaintiff is represented by: T. Reid Coploff, Esq. Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Thomas Woodley, Esq. WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Email: taw@wmlaborlaw.com slf@wmlaborlaw.com trc@wmlaborlaw.com ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Faces "Boucher" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Collectors, Inc. The case is titled Heather L. Boucher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Associated Collectors, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation; and John and Jane Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01629 (E.D. Wisc., Dec. 8, 2016). Associated Collectors has been serving healthcare, communications, government and commercial markets throughout the Midwest for over fifty years. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE: "Storey" Suit Over Adult Diapers Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the case BEVERLY K. STOREY, and BRENDA L. CARL, Plaintiffs, v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-13577 (E.D. Mich.) Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. sells a variety of adult incontinence protection products, including extended-wear incontinence products. Plaintiffs Beverly Storey and Brenda Carl purchased extended wear products in Arizona and Michigan respectively. Plaintiffs allege that contrary to defendant's representations/omissions, the extended wear products were not safe for long-term use because they increased the risk of adverse health consequences like urinary tract infections and skin irritation leading to skin ulcers. Plaintiffs asserts breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, violation of Michigan and Arizona consumer protection acts, and unjust enrichment under Michigan and Arizona law. They aspire to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased the Extended Wear Products throughout the United States. Therefore, plaintiffs have also asserted the four causes of action listed above under the laws of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The court previously granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the first amended complaint because a fundamental flaw permeated all four counts. The court explained that all four counts are premised on plaintiffs' contention that defendant's extended wear products are not safe for long term use. But plaintiffs have utterly failed to allege any facts that would render such contention plausible, other than a conclusory allegation that use of the extended wear products increases the risk of adverse health consequences. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and four counts, all of which were also featured in the first amended complaint. Defendant now moves to dismiss the second amended complaint. Judge Steeh granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Judge Steeh observed that plaintiffs did not provide any evidence regarding the design of defendant's product and whether it exposes consumers to waste. While some adult incontinence protection products may expose users to waste, creating a risk of UTI and skin ulcers, defendant's product may be a skin friendly design that does not pose this risk, much less an increased risk from extended wear. Without such evidence, plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support their contention, and therein have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under any of the four counts. Plaintiff makes a series of conclusory allegations that are not entitled to weight under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated November 28, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/EQuZ4G from Leagle.com. Beverly K. Storey, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin F. O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- at Miller Law Firm Attends Healthcare Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan C. Bunge -- jonathanbunge@quinnemanuel.com -- Michelle R. Schmit -- michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; A. Michael Palizzi -- palizzi@millercanfield.com -- Michael C. Simoni -- simoni@millercanfield.com -- at Miller, Canfield B/E AEROSPACE: Undervalued Merger Deal Hit in "Dodds" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Kipp Dodds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Amin J. Khoury, James F. Albaugh, David J. Anderson, Richard G. Hamermesh, Jonathan M. Schofield, Mary M. Vandeweghe and John T. Whates, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25038, (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a merger and taking any steps to consummate it. The lawsuit further seeks damages, costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, as well as expenses and such other and further relief resulting from violations of the Securities Exchange Act. On October 23, 2016, B/E Aerospace announced that it had entered into a merger with Quarterback Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Rockwell Collins, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, B/E Aerospace shareholders will receive $34.10 in cash and the equivalent of $27.90 in Rockwell Collins common stock, subject to a two-way 7.5% collar. Plaintiff alleges that the Merger consideration is insufficient and claim that analysts at Deutsche Bank AG set a $66.00 price target for shares of B/E Aerospace common stock as of October 6, 2016, and the financial analyses performed by B/E Aerospace's financial advisors indicate the Company is worth as much as $73.02 per share. The Board allegedly authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of aircraft passenger cabin interior products for the commercial and business jet aircraft markets. Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com nzipperian@sfmslaw.com BANDAS LAW: Edelson Suit Alleges Racketeering, Extortion -------------------------------------------------------- Edelson PC, an Illinois professional corporation, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Bandas Law Firm PC, Christopher Bandas, Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC d/b/a Darrell Palmer Law Office, Joseph Darrell Palmer, Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd., C. Jeffery Thut, Gary Stewart and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill., December 5, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief as equity for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, acts of extortion under the Hobbs Act, the unauthorized practice of law under the Illinois Attorney Act, and Wire Fraud. Defendants are accused of filing last-minute objection to a class action settlement to lose, often on purpose and then threaten to or actually appeal to a higher court, all in an attempt to extort a nuisance payment from class counsel to go away to avoid the delay of the appeals process. Upon settlement, they return as soon as the next class action seeks court approval for a settlement and start the entire process anew, often tantamount to blackmail and/or extortion. Defendants allegedly abuse the system, seeking to profit from the labor of class counsel across the country who prosecute fair and court-approved class action settlements. Edelson PC is a professional corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. The Bandas Law Firm is a professional corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 500 N. Shoreline Boulevard, #1020, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. This is owned by Christopher Bandas. Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC is a suspended professional corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business located at 603 North Highway, 101 Suite A, Solana Beach, California 92075. This is owned by Joseph Darrell Palmer. Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd., is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business located at 25 North County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085, owned by Jeffery Thut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589_6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com erapp@edelson.com BANK OF AMERICA: Riviera Police Fund Files Anti-trust Case ---------------------------------------------------------- City of Riviera Beach Police Officers' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank Of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Bank Of America Merrill Lynch International Ltd., Credit AGricole Corporate And Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Nomura International PLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09398 (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2016), seeks damages for violations of federal antitrust laws; reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; and such further relief in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds (SSA Bonds) denominated in various currencies and allegedly colluded with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. Defendants allegedly conspired to artificially inflate the prices Plaintiff paid for SSA bonds and to artificially lower the prices for which they sold SSA bonds in their transactions. Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ, England. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense Cedex, 92920 Paris, France. Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York. Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York. Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com ffox@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com BANK OF AMERICA: Discovery Bid in Alaska Pension Fund Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New Jersey, denied plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents in the case ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF) Plaintiffs brought claims under the Sherman Act and, under state law, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that defendants, fourteen banks that dominate the market for interest rate derivatives and set ISDAfix rates and ICAP Capital Markets LLC (ICAP), an inter-dealer broker that served as the administrator in charge of setting ISDAfix rates until January 26, 2014, engaged in a longstanding conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix rates in order to extract higher profits from interest rate swaps and swaptions. Plaintiffs have reached settlements with a number of defendants. Defendants' conduct with respect to ISDAfix has been the subject of investigations by several government agencies, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR"), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). Mindful of the investigations, plaintiffs requested that defendants disclose all documents that they had produced in connection with any Department of Justice, CFTC, or DFS investigation relating to ISDAfix or Swap Spreads, including all correspondence, white papers, narrative statements, disclosures, interrogatory responses, questionnaire responses, expert reports, presentations, or briefs. Even more broadly, they also requested that defendants disclose all documents that they had produced to any governmental regulator, agency, department, committee, or other entity not identified in the requests relating to ISDAfix and all documents they had received from any governmental regulator, agency, department, committee, or other governmental entity, including correspondence, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, or other request for information or documents" relating to ISDAfix. Minor variations aside, defendants agreed to provide all pre- existing documents previously produced to CFTC in response to the Commission's ISDAfix-related investigation. But Defendants refused to produce certain materials relating to the government investigations. In particular, defendants including ICAP have refused to produce the CFTC subpoenas or written inquiries from FRB, OCC, and DFS. The written communications between counsel and the regulators such as cover letters, emails and written correspondence regarding search parameters, document custodians, and other aspects of the regulators' inquiries. The written communications regarding tolling agreements and the tolling agreements themselves, the white papers, memoranda, and briefs created by counsel in connection with the Governmental Regulators' investigations; and the written communications regarding miscellaneous and administrative matters, such as scheduling meetings and calls. Additionally, some defendants declined to produce documents such as slide decks and powerpoint presentations presented to, but never produced to, the CFTC. Defendants objected on the ground that the withheld documents were irrelevant, not proportional to the needs of the case, and privileged on several grounds. Plaintiffs moved to compel production of all the withheld regulatory documents. Judge Furman held that in the management of discovery and thus the grant or denial of a motion to compel lies within the sound discretion of the district court. In exercising that discretion, the court concludes that plaintiffs' motion must be denied on relevance, proportionality, and overbreadth grounds. Significantly, in so concluding, the court does not hold that all of the documents within the scope of plaintiffs' requests are irrelevant. Instead, the Court finds "that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently articulated the relevance of the documents sought. Because production of all of the requested documents would be unduly burdensome, the court will not require defendants to review all documents to determine which documents are relevant. Plaintiffs may tailor more specific discovery requests detailing the documents or topics requested. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renewal in the event that defendants refuse to comply with narrower, more proper discovery requests. By letter, plaintiffs sought leave to file certain documents in redacted form. The court granted the motion temporarily, pending its decision on the underlying dispute. Filings that are relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process are considered judicial documents to which a presumption in favor of public access attaches. Moreover, the mere fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not a valid basis to overcome that presumption. Thus, any party that believes any redacted material should remain redacted is ordered to show cause in writing, no later than two weeks from the date of the opinion and order, why doing so would be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access. If, by that deadline, no party contends that a particular document should remain under seal or in redacted form, then plaintiffs shall promptly file that document on ECF. A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated November 16, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/l6rE2B from Leagle.com. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Thomas Kay Boardman -- tboardman@scott-scott.com -- Sylvia Sokol -- ssokol@scott-scott.com -- Kristen M. Anderson -- kanderson@scott- scott.com -- at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Daniel Paul Cunningham -- danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc Laurence Greenwald -- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig Olson -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Jeremy Daniel Andersen -- jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick Joseph Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Randi Dawn Bandman -- randib@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Ronald Judah Aranoff -- Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard, LLP Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett-- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- at at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP Magnolia Regional Health Center, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Halkett McCluer -- R. Bryant McCulley -- at McCulley McCluer PLLC; Michael C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C.; Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP The County of Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak - - jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP The City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Donald A. Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak - - jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP The County of Westmoreland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP The County of Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; Peter Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Charles Thomas Caliendo -- ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- Robert Gerard Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com - - at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. The County of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; Donald A. Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P. Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Richard Franklin Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander John Willscher -- willschera@sullcrom.com -- Benjamin Robert Walker -- walkerb@sullcrom.com -- David Harold Braff -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Joseph Porpora -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alexander Schwartz -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- at Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP; Andrew Zenner Michaelson -- amichaelson@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan David Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP BNP Paribas SA, Defendant, represented by Alejandro Hari Cruz -- acruz@pbwt.com -- Deirdre Ann McEvoy -- Joshua Aaron Goldberg -- jgoldberg@pbwt.com -- Amy Neda Vegari -- avegari@pbwt.com -- William Francis Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP CitiGroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman -- awiseman@cov.com -- Andrew D. Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com -- Andrew Arthur Ruffino -- aruffino@cov.com -- Jamie A. Heine -- jheine@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, L.L.P. Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by James L. Brochin -- jbrochin@paulweiss.com -- Moses Silverman -- msilverman@paulweiss.com -- Aaron Sean Delaney -- adelaney@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Bank PLC, Defendants, represented by Edwin R. Deyoung -- Andrew L. Fish -- Gregory Thomas Casamento -- gcasamento@lockelord.com -- Roger Brian Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Paul Madison Eckles -- paul.eckles@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Thomas Mcauley Leineweber -- thomas.leineweber@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan -- psullivan@gibsondunn.com -- Eric Jonathan Stock -- estock@gibsondunn.com -- Jefferson Eliot Bell -- jbell@gibsondunn.com -- Joel Steven Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Lawrence Jay Zweifach -- lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- Nathaniel L. Bach -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph John Frank -- joseph.frank@shearman.com -- Brian Howard Polovoy -- bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Heather Lamberg Kafele -- hkafele@shearman.com -- Katherine Mallory Tosch Brennan -- mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke -- arthur.m.t.burke@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk & Wardwell Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Seiler -- eseiler@fklaw.com -- Andrew W. Goldwater -- agoldwater@fklaw.com -- Anne Elizabeth Beaumont -- abeaumont@fklaw.com -- Jamuna D. Kelley -- jkelley@fklaw.com -- Priyanka Kishore Wityk -- pwityk@fklaw.com -- at Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Ian Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Anthony R. Van Vuren -- anthony.vanvuren@morganlewis.com -- Jon Randall Roellke - - jon.roellke@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, Defendant, represented by David George Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Herbert Scott Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com -- Landis C. Best -- lbest@cahill.com -- at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Vicens -- evicens@cgsh.com -- Leah Brannon -- lbrannon@cgsh.com -- Sue Siyan Guan -- sguan@cgsh.com -- Thomas J. Moloney -- tmoloney@cgsh.com -- at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP ICAP Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S. Fraser -- bfraser@rkollp.com -- Rowan Gaither, IV -- rgaither@rkollp.com -- Shari A. Brandt -- sbrandt@rkollp.com -- at Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP BARNHILL CONTRACTING: "Pittman" Race Bias & Wages Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The clerk of court of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina entered an order on Nov. 29, 2016, dismissing the case GLORIA PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-184-FL (E.D.N.C.), without prejudice. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan had granted plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of certain claims and directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by Nov. 28. The judge warned that the plaintiff's remaining claim will be dismissed in the event plaintiff makes no motion for leave to amend or substitute on or before Nov. 28. No such motion was filed. Pittman is a resident of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and an employee of Barnhill Contracting Company. Barnhill is a corporation engaged in construction projects in North Carolina, with offices and principal place of business in Rocky Mount. Pittman commenced a putative class action and collective action on November 19, 2015, asserting claims for race discrimination and statutory fair labor violations, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq; the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201; and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 95-25.1 et seq. Plaintiff filed a notice of filing of consents to join collective action on May 27, 2016. That same date, defendant answered and filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court stayed case scheduling activities pending resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2016, before defendant's motion had fully ripened, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss, stating, that she do not want to go any further on the case. At the hearing, plaintiff plainly expressed her intention to voluntarily dismiss the action as to her Title VII and NCWHA claims, on the recognition that any motion to substitute parties in plaintiff's stead on such claims would be futile because of statute of limitations issues. Plaintiff requested, however, a stay of decision on dismissal of the FLSA claim up to November 28, 2016, to allow plaintiff to assess whether to move for leave to amend or substitute as plaintiff any individual who has filed consents to join the FLSA collective action. Defendant acknowledged at hearing that plaintiff's filing of consents to join the FLSA collective action preserved the right of those individuals to join the FLSA collective action, upon appropriate motion, within the scope of such consents. Judge finds good cause to grant plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII and HCWHA claims, without prejudice. Based upon the parties' representations at hearing, the court holds in abeyance the remaining part of plaintiff's motion to dismiss. In the event plaintiff makes no motion for leave to amend or substitute on or before November 28, 2016, plaintiff's remaining FLSA claim shall be dismissed without prejudice, without further order of the court, on the basis of plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. In light of the disposition of plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court denies without prejudice defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing defendant to renew the motion upon any filing made by plaintiff due November 28, 2016. A copy of Judge Flanagan's order dated November 18, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/QnpGMS from Leagle.com. Gloria Pittman, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin L. Pittman -- office@apittman-law.com -- at Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman Barnhill Contracting Company, Defendant, represented by Isaac Augustin Linnartz -- ilinnartz@smithlaw.com -- Jonathan Travis Hockaday -- thockaday@smithlaw.com -- Kerry A. Shad -- kshad@smithlaw.com -- Kimberly J. Korando -- kkorando@smithlaw.com -- Patrick D. Lawler -- plawler@smithlaw.com -- at Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP BEHR PAINT: Faces "McBain" Suit Under FLSA and Calif. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MCBAIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BEHR PAINT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and MASCO CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07036 (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law. Behr manufactures paints, primers, stains, and floor coatings, and sells those products to Home Depot. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Ho, Esq. William C. Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq. Byron Goldstein, Esq. Ginger L. Grimes, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com BMW AUSTRALIA: To Pay Back $72 Million to Ordinary Car Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bachelard, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that prestige carmaker BMW will pay back $72 million to ordinary Australian car buyers who were misled into believing they could afford one of the luxury German vehicles. The massive consumer pay-back -- perhaps Australia's largest ever -- will also see the Munich-based company's finance arm paying $5 million into a "community benefit fund" to help educate people about financial literacy. Fairfax Media can reveal that BMW Australia Finance has signed an enforceable undertaking with the corporate regulator to repay the money after we revealed in August that the company was giving big loans to people with zero or even negative disposable incomes. A scathing review found that, while the company's most reckless salesmen were rewarded with bonuses, BMW had given a loan of $27,000 to a single mother of 10 children even though she was in casual employment and had negative disposable income. It gave $23,300 to a refugee aged 21 who had been employed for just one month and whose income was overstated. And it granted a loan of nearly $50,000 to a 76-year-old man based on earning projections rather than the man's real income. The loan was almost twice the value of the car. The company accepted false loan documents to justify their decisions. The "remediation" program, agreed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, is open to all customers of BMW Finance, Alphera Financial Services and Mini Financial Services brands -- all fully-owned subsidiaries of BMW. The company will write off $50 million in loans that the company should never have made, will make $14.6 million in direct payments to people who were ripped off or misled and grant $7.5 million in interest rate reductions on current loan contracts. The program is understood to identify at least 15,000 customers who suffered hardship when borrowing to buy the European marque between January 2011 and August 2016. The company will write off $50 million in loans that the company should never have made, will make $14.6 million in direct payments to people who were ripped off or misled and grant $7.5 million in interest rate reductions on current loan contracts. The program is understood to identify at least 15,000 customers who suffered hardship when borrowing to buy the European marque between January 2011 and August 2016. The agreement came as BMW Australia Finance faced the real threat of a class action from disgruntled borrowers, who were often left owing more than their car was worth. Sources said such a class action would have had a good chance of success because there was evidence that the company's management was aware of the failures and lack of controls in its business. ASIC believes that BMW Finance had a "sales-driven culture" that failed to comply with the requirements of the credit laws. "This is an example of the staggering cost of poor business practices and should act as a warning to other car financiers to get their houses in order." Details of the company's poor lending practices came to light in August when an ASIC-appointed accounting firm, Ernst & Young, conducted a forensic audit of the company's books. Out of 100 BMW customer files that it considered questionable, the accountants found 98 per cent breached the consumer credit code. In the vast bulk of these files, the finance company had underestimated people's monthly spending when assessing them for a loan. Ernst & Young's appointment has been extended until the end of next year, and it will conduct a "live review" of a sample of new loans that BMW is writing. CACH LLC: Bid to Arbitrate Granted in Part in "Snyder" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Helen Gillmor of the District of Hawaii granted in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims, in the case MARIA SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-00174 HG-KSC Plaintiff Maria Snyder opened a credit card account with Maryland National Bank, N.A. in 2005. In 2006, the account was transferred to Bank of America, N.A. (USA), also known as FIA Card Services, Inc. (Bank of America). Snyder alleges that in March 2009, Bank of America reported to Equifax that she had a delinquent credit card balance in the amount of $8,064. On 2010, Bank of America entered into a settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit in Ross v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MDL No. 1409, Civ. No. 07-7116 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Snyder claims that pursuant to the settlement agreement, Bank of America agreed that it would not enforce the arbitration provisions set forth in certain credit card agreements, including hers. On April 15, 2015, defendant CACH, LLC, with the assistance of defendant Attorney David N. Matsumiya and defendant Mandarich Law Group, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii against Snyder in an attempt to collect her credit card debt. On August 25, 2015, in the Hawaii State Court proceedings, CACH, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. Plaintiff then filed her complaint and alleges that defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Hawaii State Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Act in their attempts to collect a debt from her. CACH, LLC filed a motion to compel arbitration on behalf of itself and the remaining defendants as its agents. CACH, LLC asserts that the threshold questions of arbitrability are matters that should be decided by an arbitrator and not the court. CACH, LLC argues that the clear and unmistakable language contained in the arbitration provision of the plaintiff's Credit Card Account Agreement mandates that an arbitrator decide the issues of arbitrability. CACH, LLC added that the Ross settlement is not applicable to plaintiff because plaintiff's credit card account was transferred from Bank of America to defendant CACH, LLC before the Ross settlement was finalized. Judge Gillmor granted in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims and stated that a court may dismiss the case in favor of arbitration if it is clear that all claims are subject to arbitration. But in the present case, there is a dispute as to the threshold question of the applicability of the Ross settlement to plaintiff's arbitration agreement. The case is stayed pending resolution of that question. A copy of Judge Gillmor's order dated November 16, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/Nhx2XL from Leagle.com. Maria Snyder, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, represented by Justin A. Brackett -- justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com -- at Justin A. Brackett, Attorney at Law Defendants, represented by: Thomas M. McGreal, Esq. Law Offices of Thomas McGreal 301 W. Mission Blvd Pomona, CA 91766-1606 Telephone: 909-620-5000 Facsimile: 909-397-7119 CALIFORNIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Raisin Growers' Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Doyle, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that numerous California raisin growers are seeking federal compensation for crops surrendered years ago as part of an old supply management system. Three new court decisions could help them. In two lawsuits that seek to become a large class action, and a separate suit filed by a single Fresno County farm, growers seek government payments to offset what's been deemed a government "taking" of their property. A federal judge kept all three lawsuits alive, rejecting Justice Department efforts to dismiss them. "At this point, the government should just settle and write the checks," said attorney James A. Moody, who represents Fresno County-based Lion Farms. "In my view, the case is over at this point." Potentially, a lot is at stake. The overlapping lawsuits blossoming at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, about one block from the White House, sprouted from a 2015 Supreme Court decision in a case brought by Fresno County grower Marvin Horne. The high court sided with Mr. Horne's argument that the mandatory setting aside of a portion of his crop required payment under the 5th Amendment. "Raisins are private property, the fruit of the growers' labor, not public things subject to the absolute control of the state," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the Horne case. "Any physical taking of them for public use must be accompanied by just compensation." Several months after the Supreme Court's high-profile green light, raisin growers began following up at the lesser-known claims court. The three decisions issued by Judge Loren A. Smith did not delve into the merits of the three raisin-related claims. Instead, the 71-year-old judge, appointed by President Reagan, simply concluded that the suits were not precluded by the statute of limitations despite the passage of years. Judge Smith set Dec. 20 as a date for attorneys in all three cases to come up with a schedule and report indicating how the cases should proceed. One suit, filed by Lion Farms, seeks compensation for raisins turned over to a "reserve" pool for the 2006-2010 crop years. The reserve was designed to stabilize the market and sustain prices by regulating supply. Another suit, a potential class action initially filed by grower Earl O. Boyajian, seeks compensation for the 2007-2010 crop years. Boyajian farms a 98-acre vineyard and has been in the raisin business for more than 55 years. Mr. Boyajian has subsequently sought to be replaced on the case by another grower, Ray Hickman. The third suit, filed on behalf of raisin grower Bruce Ciapessoni, Madera-based Hansen Enterprises and several others, similarly seeks compensation for raisins turned over during the 2002-2009 crop years. This suit, like Mr. Boyajian's, seeks the added heft that would come with being certified by Smith as a class action. "There are more than 3,000 raisin growers whose raisins have been subject to a reserve-pool requirement in each year in which such a requirement was imposed over the past decade alone," attorneys with McDermott Will & Emery said in a legal filing last year for the Ciapessoni lawsuit. McDermott Will & Emery has represented Sun-Maid Growers of California, a large cooperative based in Kingsburg, in other raisin-related litigation. A federal marketing order has governed the raisin industry since 1949. Initiated by industry members and authorized by Congress, marketing orders in general are supposed to help maintain quality standards and provide stable markets. The raisin marketing order also authorizes volume control. The raisin order says that handlers, who pack and process the raisins, may have to withhold part of their crop for a "reserve tonnage" managed by the Raisin Administrative Committee. The set- aside raisins may be sold below fair value for purposes such as federal nutrition programs. Raisin handlers, for instance, set aside 47% of their crop during the 2002-03 season and 30% for 2003-04, but they were paid for only part of what they surrendered. Volume controls have not been imposed in recent years. If Smith certifies either the Mr. Boyajian or the Ciapessoni lawsuits as a class action, it would expand to cover all growers whose raisins were set aside for the reserve-pool requirement during the relevant years. Among other consequences, this would enhance the growers' bargaining power with the government. CANADA: Former Sailor to Launch Sexual Harassment Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dirk Meissner, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a former sailor says she is launching a proposed class-action lawsuit to change the culture of harassment and abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces after the military rejected her complaints of unwanted sexual advances by a superior. Nicola Peffers said in a statement of claim that female and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the Canadian Forces are routinely subjected to sexual harassment and abuse. Ms. Peffers, 34, said on Dec. 5 in a conference call from Germany that she did not receive protection or justice after directing her complaints about fear tactics, sexual advances and abuse to senior officials in the Canadian Forces. Her lawyers sat at a news conference in Victoria as the woman spoke on the phone and said she joined the navy nine years ago to serve and become part of the world's greater good. However, she left in 2012 after complaints of harassment and sexual assault were not properly investigated or dealt with, she said. Ms. Peffers was based at Canadian Forces Esquimalt near Victoria and served on frigates. "When I arrived, I learned the culture was not one of camaraderie, at least for women or LGBTQ members," she said. "The culture was one of fear and intimidation. The culture was one of abuse, discrimination, bullying and harassment. The culture was of sexual assault." Ms. Peffers said when she failed to comply with the sexual demands of one of her superiors she faced retaliation and professional repercussions. "The culture of the Forces tried to strip me of my dignity and my humanity and spat me out when I would not let that happen," she said. "I reported complaints through all the proper channels. I did not receive justice." Her lawyers told the news conference they expect hundreds and perhaps thousands of military members to join the class action, which seeks to compensate alleged victims and change the culture of the Canadian Forces. "It is unfair to ask Forces members to protect us if they need every ounce of their courage to survive discrimination and abuse, harassment and assault inflicted by their peers and superiors," said lawyer Natalie Foley. Ms. Foley said attempts by the military to help and protect victims of harassment and abuse have been woefully inadequate. The Department of National Defence said it is aware of the legal action and since the Attorney General of Canada has only recently seen the lawsuit, it is being reviewed to determine next steps. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Canada's chief of defence staff said he was disappointed and angry after a Statistics Canada survey found a troubling number of sexual assaults and other misconduct among active service personnel in the military. The findings included an estimated 960 men and women who said they were victims of sexual assaults in the last year, with some incidents occurring after Gen. Jonathan Vance gave an order for such behaviour to stop when he took over as chief in July 2015. CANADA: Inuvik Native Band Identifies Members Qualified in Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mackenzie Scott, writing for CBC News, reports that the Inuvik Native Band has identified about 40 members who were day scholars at residential schools and may benefit from an ongoing class- action lawsuit against the federal government. Day scholars attended Indian Residential Schools during the day but went home at night. Day scholars weren't included in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2006 and did not receive compensation. Everyone who was a day scholar and the children of people who were day scholars are automatically included in the class-action lawsuit, which was certified in June 2015. Indigenous groups across Canada are trying to identify and count the potential beneficiaries of the lawsuit. However, the Inuvik Native Band had a very late start to spreading the word and started to take recent action due to an inquiry from a representative of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. "She had asked me about this particular file. After looking through things, I came across what was left of any action on it from the past. Then I contacted the initiating band," said Edward Wright, the acting administrator of the Inuvik Native Band. Missed band deadline Mr. Wright, who is new to his position, found the document that he said went "by the wayside" about six months after the info was initially sent out to bands across Canada. Mr. Wright found out that it was too late for the band itself to become a part of the band class of the lawsuit -- if First Nation groups wanted to opt-in, the deadline was in February. The lawsuit's co-ordinators were also collecting forms from individuals as data collection -- to get an estimated count of those eligible as they head into settlement negotiations. Mr. Wright said he found that information out about a week before the Nov. 30 deadline for the count. "I just a put message on and started dealing with people mainly for the Inuvik Native Band . . . as well as other members from some of the communities and past members that live in Yellowknife," said Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright said in the short period of time, there were about 40 inquiries made. He said if there had been more time, more names would have been collected. "A lot of our people in not just Inuvik but the whole Beaufort Delta, many, many people attended residential schools as well as day schools," said Mr. Wright. Even if they were not counted by Nov. 30, all former day scholars and their children are still included in the suit. Negotiations to begin In October, the federal government appointed a ministerial special representative and negotiations toward a settlement are expected to begin in the New Year. The process is expected to take years. Jo-Anne Gottfriedson with the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc Indian band in the B.C. Interior is the co-chair and co-ordinator for the day scholars class action lawsuit. She says information about the lawsuit has been passed along to all the bands across Canada since May, and that time is of the essence. "Three of our plaintiffs have already passed away in this last year," she said. "The most important goal that we want to achieve is to have the opportunity and the right to regain our language and our culture, and to have healing for our people." She said about 98 bands across Canada opted-in to the band class of the lawsuit. CARNEGIE PARK: Judge Favors Dismissal Over Injunction ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Sylvia G. Ash of the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied plaintiffs'' motion for preliminary injunction and granted defendants' motions to dismiss, in the case BEVERLY KESSLER, ROBERT KESSLER, JERROLD GENDLER M.D., JOSEPH QUENQUA, AND "JANE DOES #1-100", ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. CARNEGIE PARK ASSOCIATES, L.P., CARNEGIE PARK TOWER, LLC, THE RELATED COMPANIES, L.P., 200 EAST 62ND OWNER, LLC, HFZ 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE OWNER LLC, HFZ 88 LEXINGTON AVENUE OWNER LLC, HFZ 235 WEST 75TH STREET OWNER LLC, HFZ 344 WEST 72ND STREET LLC, CLASSON ESTATE ONE LLC, 380 PROSPECT PARTNERS LLC, 466 FIFTEENTH STREET PARTNERS LLC, AND "JOHN DOES #1-100", Defendants, Docket No. 514588/15 (N.Y.) On December 20, 1984, CPA purchased a property, located at 200 East 94th Street, in Manhattan, from the City of New York, and, in 1987, a building was constructed on the property. The building was a 31-story tower that consisted of luxury residential apartments on the first through penthouse floors and four commercial units. None of the apartments were rent-controlled, and the tenants paid market-rate rents for their apartments. Named plaintiffs Beverly Kessler, Robert Kessler, Jerrold Gendler, M.D., Joseph Quenqua are all senior citizens who resided as tenants in rental apartments in the building. From approximately 2008 to March 2015, Beverly and Robert occupied apartment # 216 and Joseph occupied apartment #2718. Jerrold occupied apartment #2011 from approximately 2004 to 2015. By 2014, during the time that plaintiffs were tenants, CPT had acquired ownership of the building from CPA. On April 30, 2014, CPT submitted a non-eviction offering plan to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York to convert the building into a condominium with 325 residential units, which was to be offered by it under the terms set forth in the offering plan. The Office of the Attorney General accepted CPT's offering plan for filing on December 22, 2014, and the offering plan was declared effective on August 14, 2015. Upon the expiration of their leases, plaintiffs vacated their apartments and they are presently no longer in possession of them. After plaintiffs vacated their apartments, CPT sold or entered into contracts to sell nearly 87% of the condominium units in the building. On December 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed their summons and complaint against CPT, CPA, and related affiliates. Plaintiffs allege that the offering plan constituted a unilateral option contract which contained terms for tenants who resided in the building under which they could either purchase the apartments in which they lived or remain in occupancy of their apartments as tenants. They assert that these contractual provisions granted an option to tenants, who were 62 years of age or older or disabled and in occupancy of their apartments on the date that the Attorney General accepted the offering plan for filing, to elect, within 60 days of the date the Attorney General accepted the plan for filing, on forms promulgated by the Attorney General and presented to them, to become non-purchasing tenants. They further assert that the offering plan provided that if they elected to become non-purchasing tenants, they could not be evicted from their apartments and had the right to remain as tenants with rents that were protected from unconscionable increases. Plaintiffs allege that since they were all senior citizens on the date that CPT's offering plan was filed with the Office of the Attorney General, CPT should have given them the option to become non-purchasing tenants who would be protected from eviction and unconscionable rent increases. They assert that CPT failed to give them a form to elect to become non-purchasing tenants. They claim that if they had been given the form to elect to become non- purchasing tenants, they would have exercised their right to become non-purchasing tenants with protective rights, as senior citizens. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2016. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges nine causes of action. Plaintiffs' first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and ninth causes of action seek damages of not less than one hundred million dollars. Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action seeks damages of two hundred million dollars. Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action seeks damages of not less than $20 million. On April 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to: (1) enjoining defendants from giving possession of apartments, which had been previously occupied by tenants who were disabled and/or were 62 years of age or older, to any prospective buyers or third-party individuals, from otherwise taking steps to frustrate or prevent the members of this protected class of tenants from re-occupying the apartments in which they had once resided, and from transferring the rights of use, occupancy, and possession to any third party other than the members of this protected class, and (2) requiring defendants to take the following steps and actions: (a) immediately account for and provide a reconciliation of all apartments in their buildings which were occupied by persons who were disabled and/or were 62 years of age or older at the time that the offering plans were declared effective for these buildings, (b) provide all documentation, including leases, riders, lease renewals, correspondence, and opt-in forms concerning the persons residing in the apartments in the subject buildings between the time that the offering plan for each building was sent to the Office of the Attorney General and the time that the offering plan was declared effective, (c) disclose all contracts and agreements in which defendants have sold or are in contract to sell apartments in their buildings that had been occupied by persons who were disabled and/or were 62 years of age or older at the time that the offering plan was declared effective for each of these buildings, (d) disclose to the prospective purchasers of apartments in defendants' buildings that this class action has been filed, in which members of the class are asserting rights to the use, occupancy, and possession of the apartments that they may be purchasing and that these buildings may have a number of units which are occupied by members of this class, and (e) identify all other legal proceedings to which defendants are parties. 200 East 62nd Owner moves, under motion sequence number two, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), for an order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint as against it in its entirety, or, in the alternative, for an order transferring the claims against it to New York County pursuant to CPLR 507. CPA, CPT, and Related move, under motion sequence number three, for an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 507, transferring venue of this action to New York County, or, in the alternative, (2) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them in its entirety. Judge Ash denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in its entirety. 200 East 62nd Owner's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint as against it and CPT, CPA, and Related's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them are both granted, and plaintiffs' action as against 200 East 62nd Owner, CPT, CPA, and Related are severed and dismissed. In view of the granting of the motions to dismiss, 200 East 62nd Owner's motion and CPT, CPA, and Related's motion, insofar as they seek, in the alternative, an order transferring venue of the action to New York County, have been rendered moot. Judge Ash observed that defendants have entered into contracts for the sale of their condominium units or cooperative units or have already sold these units. A preliminary injunction, which would prevent defendants from delivering possession and transferring the rights of use and occupancy of the units to buyers, would impair existing contracts for the sale of units scheduled for closing. To the extent that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeks an order requiring defendants to produce extensive documents and information, it is, in effect, seeking discovery. CPLR article 31 provides the procedure by which parties may seek discovery. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any basis for seeking such discovery by way of a preliminary injunction. Thus, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied in its entirety. A copy of Judge Ash's decision and order dated November 22, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/VUdIsF from Leagle.com. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces "Shepard" Suit in Dist. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Central Portfolio Control, Inc. The case is captioned Heather Shepard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Portfolio Control, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-04108-JRT-KMM (D. Minn., December 7, 2016). Central Portfolio Control, Inc. operates a debt collection agency located at 10249 Yellow Circle Drive, Suite 200, Hopkins, MN 55343. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio South, Ste. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Anthony P. Chester, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 120 S. 6th St., Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (952) 225-5333 Facsimile: (800) 635-6425 E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com CEVA LOGISTICS: "McDonald" Files Suit Under California Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MCDONALD, an individual; Plaintiff, v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-02961-W-MDD (S.D. Cal., December 5, 2016), seeks relief including, but not limited to, alleged unpaid wages, interest, damages, business expenses, and penalties based on California Labor Code. Plaintiff further intends to seek penalties on his behalf and other allegedly aggrieved employees of Defendants on behalf of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, for such Labor Code violations providing for penalties. Defendants provide supply chain and logistics services, including ground delivery services for various customers in the United States, including California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. O'Leary, Esq. David L. Skilling, Esq. SKILLING O'LEARY, PC 401 West A Street, Suite 1745 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 500-4027 Fax: (888) 483-3049 CHER OIL: Cushing-Area Residents File Class Action Over Quake ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Remer, writing for KTUL, reports that several Cushing-area residents have filed a class action lawsuit after a 5.0-magnitude earthquake in November. The suit, filed on Dec. 5 by attorneys representing David and Myra Reid, names five energy companies as defendants. The defendants are: -- Cher Oil Company Ltd -- Crown Energy Company -- FHA Investments LLC -- Petrowarrior LLC -- White Star Petroleum LLC David Reid, who owns the Cushing Citizen newspaper, which was heavily damaged in the quake, says he knew litigation would occur and he wanted to make sure the town and its residents had the best attorneys attached to the case. He says the citizens of Pawnee acted swiftly after they experienced damaging quakes and he thought it was time to act on behalf of Cushing. Mr. Reid says his building, which he lives and works in, is just one of several that sustained damage and other property owners are involved in the suit. The plaintiffs are asking for damages in excess of $10,000. The Nov. 6 quake occurred little more than a mile west of Cushing, damaging dozens of buildings and resulting in minor injuries. A mid-rise building that served as a retirement home in downtown Cushing was evacuated, leaving some residents without a place to stay. CIMIC: Faces New Class Action, February 22 Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Palmer, writing for The Australian, reports that construction and engineering giant CIMIC is facing a fresh class action, after a statement of claim was filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn on November 23. CIMIC, formerly known as Leighton, said it had obtained a copy of the claim but had not been formally served. It comes more than two years after the company agreed to settle a separate class action run by Maurice Blackburn that saw shareholders receive compensation of $69.5 million. That suit followed claims of misleading conduct as it announced heavy writedowns and losses in 2011. The latest case has been filed to the ACT registry of the Federal Court, with the lead applicant Inabu Pty Ltd as trustee for the Alidas Superannuation Fund. Inabu was the applicant at the centre of the settled case in 2014, with CIMIC contending the new class action appeared to show little variation from the last. "The proceedings are brought on behalf of a similar class and make similar allegations as proceedings which commenced in 2013 in the Supreme Court of Victoria," the company said. "Those proceedings were permanently stayed by the Supreme Court of Victoria." The engineering group also said "nearly identical proceedings in relation to the same subject matter" had been introduced into the Supreme Court of Victoria on April 14, 2015. "CIMIC continues to deny the claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria and is defending those proceedings," the company said. "CIMIC also denies there is a proper basis for the further claim now commenced in the Federal Court and will defend the proceedings." The first hearing for the new case is slated for February 22 at 9.30am (AEDT). CONN APPLIANCES: Judge Recommends Dismissal in "Alvarado" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the Western District Texas, Austin Division, recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, in the case JOSE ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC., Cause No. 1:16-CV-464-LY (W.D. Tex.) Jose Alvarado made a couple of purchases at Conn Appliances, Inc. in August. The debt made by Alvarado had contracts that contain arbitration clauses. Conn later assigned the contracts to Conn Credit I, LP. Though Conn is no longer a party to the contracts, Conn states that it acts as an agent and servicer for Credit in its attempts to collect on the Contracts. Moreover, Conn and Credit maintain a formal written agreement memorializing their relationship. Alvarado filed a purported class action lawsuit against Conn, alleging that Conn's debt collection practices violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Conn moved to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to the arbitration clause in the contract. Alvarado responds that Conn cannot enforce the arbitration clause, because it ceased being a party to the contract after the contract was assigned to Credit. Conn disagrees on the merits of Alvarado's reading of the contract, and the impact of the assignment of the agreement to Credit. Further, Conn argues that under the language of the contracts, gateway issues of arbitrability including the issue raised by Alvarado are for the arbitrator, so the court should compel arbitration. The district court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules. Magistrate Judge Austin agrees with the defendant and made an observation that Conn was an original signatory of the contract, as it first signed the contract and then assigned the agreement to Credit after execution. Moreover, the arbitration clause states that it would survive the transfer of the agreement, so there is a reasonable argument that Conn remains a party to the arbitration clause and thus, even after the assignment, is not a non-party to the agreement. Conn continued to be involved with the contract by servicing it after it was assigned to Credit. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the district court grant defendants' motion to dismiss and order the parties to proceed to arbitration. The parties may file objections to the report and recommendation. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, within 14 days after the party is served with a copy of the report shall bar that party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations in their report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. A copy of Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/19dysi from Leagle.com. Jose Alvarado, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Davidson -- jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Aaron D. Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC Conn Appliances, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina M. Putman -- Christopher M. Jordan -- jjordan@munsch.com -- Michael Allen Harvey -- mharvey@munsch.com -- at Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Filed in Receipt Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq. -- julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com -- and David N. Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Esq., of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that as previously reported, the named plaintiff in Paci v. Costco Wholesale Corporation filed a Fair Credit Reporting Act putative class action against Costco alleging that the retailer's receipts contained more digits of the payment card's account number than is permitted under the Act. The parties recently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Costco argued that it did not violate the Act because the "extra" six digits permissibly revealed only the type of card Paci used for her purchases and not any personal information. Those first six digits are identical on all cards, Costco stated. Costco also argued that the statute only applies to receipts provided to customers "at the point of sale or transaction." Here, in contrast, Paci received the receipt in an area separate and apart from the cash registers. Costco finally argued that Paci lacks Article III standing to maintain her class action because the receipt at issue has been secured in a file cabinet since she received it, and she has never established how the receipt could have been used to facilitate identity theft. In her summary judgment motion, Paci argued that discovery "has confirmed that the receipt is printed within a Costco store and that the machine that prints the subject receipt is part of Costco's point of sale system," thus entitling Paci to judgment as a matter of law. Paci also argued that she satisfies Article III standing requirements. According to Paci, "[t]he plain language of the statute . . . indicates that the violation, the concrete harm, is completed once the electronically printed receipt is 'provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction.'" She concludes that an invasion of a legally protected interest is sufficient to satisfy Article III. Paci also briefly argues that expending time to protect her receipt instead of simply throwing out her receipt could also constitute concrete injuries. The motions are expected to be fully briefed by the beginning of January. DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harnen" Action Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Cindy Harnen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00330, (N.D. Fla., December 7, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Dolgencorp, LLC, does business as Dollar General, operating discount department stores retailing basic consumer goods. Defendant's manager, Jodi McGee, would clock out the Plaintiff at 10:30 pm, but Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were required to continue working thereafter for anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour or more. Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Tel: (954) 763-5722 Fax: (954) 763-5723 Email: chad@levylevylaw.com assistant@levylevylaw.com DR REDDY'S LABORATORIES: PA Teachers Fund Files Anti-Trust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06322, (E.D. Pa., December 6, 2016), is a class action for claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial injuries the Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained against Defendants, arising from their conspiracy to raise the prices of divalproex sodium extended-release tablets and to allocate markets and customers for this product in the United States. Defendants are among the world's largest generic drug manufacturers. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a voluntary employee benefits plan with principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It provides health benefits, including prescription drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their spouses and dependents. It purchased and paid for supra-priced pravastatin. Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com EL TAMARINDO: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA RIVERA, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EL TAMARINDO CAFE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and NESTOR A. AMAYA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-62888-WJZ (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages to all servers/waitpersons pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to timely pay its servers their weekly pay checks. Each time Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff on the regular pay day, a minimum wage violation occurred where the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, became entitled to an award of minimum wage liquidated damages. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer lost earnings, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a direct result of El Tamarindo's violations. El Tamarindo operates a Latin American food restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue. Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617 6017 Facsimile: (954) 617 6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com FAITH CONSTRUCTION: "Eroglu" Action Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Marco H. Eroglu, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members Plaintiffs, v. Faith Construction Inc., Fatih Dag and Hesham Hassane, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06787, (E.D. N.Y., December 9, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in addition, unpaid spread of hours premium pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Defendants operated a construction company where Plaintiff worked as a construction worker, earning $14.00 per hour for working from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, for a total of 60 hours and worked on average of two nights per week for an average of 8 hours totalling 68 hours. He claims to be denied overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff is represented by: Leopold Raic, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 825-1400 FOUR CORNERS: "Badger" Suit Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Four Corners Property Trust, Inc., Four Corners Operating, Partnership, LP And, Four Corners, GP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01828, (W.D. Pa., December 7, 2016), seeks permanent injunction, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Badger has a mobility disability and is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. She was allegedly denied full and equal access to parking lots and paths of travel. Defendant's properties are located at 1010 Pittsburgh Mills Boulevard, Tarentum, Pennsylvania and at 8400 McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and are leased out to Darden Restaurant's, Inc. Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- James Alderman and Jean Losada, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gatestone & Co. International Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-14541-RLR (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Gatestone & Co. International Inc. provides accounts receivable management and call centre services for financial institutions, and various government bodies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq. Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 A1A Suite D Vero Beach, FL 34963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com lwd@verobeachlegal.com GEORGIA: DJJ Faces Suit for Civil Rights Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ N. T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Officer Raphael Howell, Officer Erika Rainey, Captain Victor Martin, Counselor Samantha Daniels, Counselor Latonya Durden, Director John Brady, Assistant Director Kendra Strowbridge, Assistant Director Lawrence Paul Cloutier, Director Ronald Brawner, Director Melvin Womble, Commissioner Amy Howell, Commissioner L. Gale Buckner, Deputy Commissioner Sarah Draper, Deputy Commissioner Michael McNeely, Director Martha Dalesio, Case No. 1:16-cv-04524-LMM (N.D. Ga., December 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Defendants operate the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), a multi-faceted agency that provides a wide range of services for youthful offenders across the state. The Plaintiff is represented by: Demetra Duan Ford, Esq. FORD LAW, LLC 931 Monroe Drive, NE Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 392-5500 E-mail: fordesq@yahoo.com - and - La Tisha G. Dear, Esq. LA TISHA G. DEAR, LLC Building 1, 2900 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30084 Telephone: (770) 455-1350 E-mail: esq24lgd@aol.com - and - Sidney Leighton Moore, Esq. THE MOORE LAW FIRM PC 400 Colony Square, Suite 2000 1201 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (678) 237-0330 E-mail: leighton@moorefirmpc.com - and - Thomas Gatewood Sampson II, Esq. THOMAS KENNEDY SAMPSON & TOMPKINS, LLP 3355 Main Street Atlanta, GA 30337 Telephone: (404) 688-4503 E-mail: w.sampson@tkstlaw.com HESO INC: Faces "Lopes" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- VALDINEI LOPES, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. HESO, INC., HAVANA WIRING & ELECTRICAL CORP., QUALITY USED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INC., EMPIRE ELECTRICAL SOLUTION INC. and HERNAN F. SOCARRAS a/k/a FRANK SOCARRAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06796 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2016), seeks to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants provide residential, commercial, and industrial electrical services in the New York tri-state area. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 HITACHI METALS: Price-fixing of Brake Hoses Alleged by Emerald -------------------------------------------------------------- Emerald Capital Advisors Corporation, trustee for FAH Liquidating Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hitachi Metals, Ltd, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-14245 (E.D. Mich., December 5, 2016) seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, resulting from violations of the Sherman Act. Hitachi Metals, Ltd. and its co-conspirators are alleged of suppressing and eliminating competition by agreeing to allocate sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of brake hose sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. Emerald Capital Advisors Corporation, in its capacity as Trustee for the FAH Liquidating Trust is the successor in interest of Fisker Automotive, which purchased automotive brake hoses directly from Hitachi Metals, Ltd. Hitachi Metals, Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan, and U.S. subsidiaries in various locations, including New Albany, Indiana. Plaintiff was represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Email: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com whose@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Email: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 2513 Morocco Avenue North Las Vegas, NV 89108 Telephone: (888) 461-8710 Email: rbonsignore@class-actions.us - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Email: rick@saveri.com cadio@saveri.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Email: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com HUA DA INC: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hua Da Inc. The case is entitled Edwin Zayas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hua Da Inc., and Hot Sichuan Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09493 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2016). Hua Da operates a Chinese Restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783 9662 Facsimile: (646) 435 4376 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com ICE CREAM HOUSE: "Galicia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GALICIA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ICE CREAM HOUSE ON BEDFORD AVE LLC, ICE CREAM HOUSE, LLC, DANIEL KLEIN, DAVID KLEIN, and VICTOR KLEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06738-CBA-PK (E.D.N.Y., December 6, 2016), seeks to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants are involved in the manufacture and distribution of various food items, including, but not limited to, ice cream, sorbets, paninis, and pasta. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 INFINITE CARE: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nitza I. Qui¤ones Alejandro of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and costs, in the case JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. INFINITE CARE, INC. Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1824 (E.D. Pa.) On April 8, 2015, Jessica Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint, against Infinite Care, Inc., alleging that Infinite Care violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109 et seq. (WARN Act), when it ordered the closing of a facility plant at 6423 Rising Sun Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19111, resulting in the termination of Rodriguez's employment and that of over 1,000 similarly situated employees who worked at or reported to the facility. Plaintiff avers that the class of plaintiffs included all employees who worked at the facility and were terminated when the plant closed on February 27, 2015. Plaintiff and defendant agreed to avoid further costly litigation and the uncertainties and risks associated therewith, to settle, compromise, and resolve any and all demands, claims, damages, and causes of action arising from the complaint, and to enter into a settlement agreement which included certification of the proposed settlement class. On March 31, 2016, plaintiff and defendant filed a joint motion for order (1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement; (2) Approving Form and Manner of Notice to the Proposed Settlement Class; (3) Scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing for the Final Consideration and Approval of the Settlement; and (4) Finally Approving the Settlement. The court granted the motion for preliminary approval and found that the proposed notice of settlement met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B), and ordered, the settlement class certified be as follows: All of those employees laid off on or about February 27, 2015, and thereafter, as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plant closing, who suffered an employment loss as defined by the Warn Act, who do not opt-out of the Settlement Class. On September 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and costs. The proposed class action settlement agreement contains the following material terms: -- Defendant has agreed to pay the sum of $472,000.00 for distribution to class members. Though plaintiff argues that $3,000,00.00 is the maximum liability to which defendant could have been subject, the maximum actual recovery was limited to $472,000.00, the total remaining funds held in escrow as part of defendant's guilty plea to several felonies. -- $5,000.00 of the settlement amount shall be paid to representative plaintiff Jessica Rodriguez, for her service to the class and the time and effort spent litigating the action. -- One-third of the remaining settlement amount, totaling the sum of $155,666.67, and reasonable costs up to $10,000.00, will be paid to The Gardner Firm, P.C. and Lankenau & Miller, LLP, contingent upon approval of the class settlement, for attorneys' fees and costs. The remaining settlement amount will be distributed evenly to those settlement class members who did not opt-out of the settlement. -- Judge Quinones Alejandro of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $155,666.67 and reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $10,000.00, and awards the sum of $5,000.00 to the class representative, Jessica Rodriguez. A copy of Judge Qui¤ones Alejandro's memorandum opinion dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/nKsu4D from Leagle.com. JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, represented by: STUART J. MILLER, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: 212-581-5005 Facsimile: 212-581-2122 - and - JAMES E. HUGGETT -- jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com -- SARAH ENNIS -- sennis@margolisedelstein.com -- at MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN; M. VANCE MCCRARY -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- MARY E. OLSEN -- molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- at THE GARDNER FIRM INFINITE CARE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN K. LUDWIG -- sludwig@foxrothschild.com -- FRANZ ESPANOL -- fespanol@foxrothschild.com -- at FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP INTERNATIONAL GENERAL: OT Pay Recovery Sought in "Bilbao" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Henry E. Bilbao and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. International General Supply, LLC, Carlos A. Paz, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25070 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2016), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. International General Supply., LLC. -- http://www.igsup.com/-- is as enterprise specializing in all type of mid-size and small-size electric machines. It is located at 5465 NW 112th Path, Doral, FL 33178. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant an average of 63 hours a week and was paid an average of $25.00 per hour but was never paid anything at all for approximately 3,000 overtime hours worked over 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com JVK OPERATIONS: Guevara Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under NY Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN ALEXANDER GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JVK OPERATIONS LIMITED; VINOD SAMUEL; MICHAEL CONNELL; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No 609544/2016. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed by JVK Operations Limited pursuant to the New York Labor Law, the Labor Law Article, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR). According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime compensation as required by applicable state law. JVK Operations provides linen service for hospital systems, long term care centers, and specialty care centers throughout the tri- state area. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 KAISER PERMANENTE: No Violation in Anti-Assignment, Judge Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay of the District of Hawaii, rejected Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and ruled that medical providers have the right to sue the company for the denial of benefits to health plan participants. The case is, TOBY SIDLO, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California non-profit corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation, and AIR MEDICAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., a Utah Corporation, Defendants. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation, Counterclaim Defendant, Civ. No. 16-00073 ACK-KSC (D. Haw.) Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (KFHP) serves as a claim fiduciary of certain group health plans within the State of Hawaii that are governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ERISA. Consolidated plaintiff Toby Sidlo and a group of proposed class members were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans. Hawaii Life Flight Corporation (HLF) provided medical air transportation services to certain members of KFHP's health plans and submitted claims to KFHP for reimbursement of those services. Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. (AMRG) shares certain corporate officers with HLF and holds a FAA Part 135 certificate, under which certain aircraft operate. HLF is one of at least nine medical transportation companies affiliated with AMRG. On February 18, 2016, KFHP filed a complaint against HLF and AMRG for violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). In its complaint, KFHP alleges HLF and AMRG have violated and attempted to violate an anti-assignment provision contained in KFHP's health plans within Hawaii, which are governed by the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. KFHP alleges that HLF and/or AMRG have repeatedly attempted to procure broad assignments of members of the plans' rights, interest, claims for money due, benefits and/or obligations under the plans, in violation of the anti-assignment provision. More specifically, KFHP asserts that the Sidlo litigation has been brought by HLF and/or AMRG in Sidlo's name, which constitutes a violation of the anti-assignment provision. HLF and AMRG filed an answer to the complaint on April 14, 2016 and on that same day HLF filed a counterclaim against KFHP and asserts unfair competition in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 480-2, tortious interference with contract, defamation and trade libel/disparagement. HLF asserts that KFHP, in connection with its health insurance services, has made written and oral demands that hospitals arrange for emergency transportation of patients exclusively through or as designated by KFHP, even where those hospitals have contracts with HLF and contrary to the federal law that exclusively provides that emergency patient transport is arranged by the treating physician. Further, HLF contends that KFHP has sent letters to patients that received air ambulance services from HLF, which letters contain numerous falsehoods, misrepresentations, and otherwise disparaging and defamatory statements regarding HLF. On July 18, 2016, KFHP filed its motion for summary judgment against HLF and AMRG, along with a memorandum in support of motion and a concise statement of facts in support of the motion for summary judgment. In its motion, KFHP requests that the court issue an order declaring that KFHP's health plans contain an enforceable anti-assignment provision; that KFHP has not waived the anti-assignment provision; and that HLF and AMRG cannot enforce assignments against KFHP through, among other things, the Sidlo litigation and any other use of an assignment to stand in the shoes of members. On October 17, 2016, HLF and AMRG filed an opposition to KFHP's motion, as well as a response to KFHP's concise statement of facts. In their opposition, HLF and AMRG request that summary judgment be granted in their favor pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(i). Judge Kay denied KFHP's motion for summary judgment against HLF and AMRG and granted summary judgment on KFHP's complaint in favor of HLF and AMRG pursuant to Rule 56(f) and Local Rule 56.1(i). Judge Kay observed that the anti-assignment provisions contain no language specifically barring assignments to non-contracted providers like HLF. The Court is guided by the Fifth Circuit's reasoned approach to anti-assignment provisions, and finds that the evidence supports that approach with respect to the anti-assignment provision at issue. The court concludes that KFHP's members may assign their rights under the health plans to medical providers that offer the very services for which the members have a right to benefits. HLF has received only a right to payment of benefits, not a right to bring suit under ERISA to recover such benefits. As an assignee of Sidlo's right to benefits, HLF also has a right to sue for the denial of those benefits. A copy of Judge Kay's order dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/EXJb3n from Leagle.com. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alana Peacott-Ricardos -- apeacottricardos@goodsill.com -- Gail Y. Cosgrove -- gcosgrove@goodsill.com -- Lisa W. Munger -- lmunger@goodsill.com -- at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel; Alison H. Hong -- ahong@seyfarth.com -- Kathleen Cahill Slaught -- kslaught@seyfarth.com -- Michelle M. Scannell -- mscannell@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP Hawaii Life Flight Corporation and Air Medical Resource Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew James Lautenbach -- alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Mark J. Bennett -- mbennett@starnlaw.com -- Orian J. Lee -- at Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher Hawaii Life Flight Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew James Lautenbach -- alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Mark J. Bennett -- mbennett@starnlaw.com -- Orian J. Lee -- at Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Alana Peacott-Ricardos -- apeacottricardos@goodsill.com -- Gail Y. Cosgrove -- gcosgrove@goodsill.com -- Lisa W. Munger -- lmunger@goodsill.com - - at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel; Alison H. Hong -- ahong@seyfarth.com -- Kathleen Cahill Slaught -- kslaught@seyfarth.com -- Michelle M. Scannell -- mscannell@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP KENTUCKY: "Woodcock" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brian Woodcock, Ruben Rios Salinas, Keath Bramblett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Rodney Ballard, LaDonna Thompson, Doug Crall, MD, Mrs. Cookie Crews, Dr. Frederick Kemen, MD, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Case No. 15-CI-63, was removed from the Franklin Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00096-GFVT to the proceeding. Commonwealth of Kentucky is a state located in the east south- central region of the United States. Correct Care Solutions, LLC operates a healthcare company that provides behavioral health, residential treatment, and related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Bathurst, Esq. Gregory Allen Belzley, Esq. BELZLEY BATHURST, ATTORNEYS P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 292-2452 E-mail: camillebathurst@aol.com gbelzley@aol.com The Defendant Commonwealth of Kentucky is represented by: Lainie Crouch Kaiser, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: (502) 696-5602 - and - Taylor Payne, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200 Frankfort, KY 40601-8204 Telephone: (502) 696-5342 E-mail: Taylor.Payne@ky.gov The Defendant Rodney Ballard is represented by: Linda Marion Keeton, Esq. OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES-DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 275 E. Main Street P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, KY 40602-2400 Telephone: (502) 564-4726 Facsimile: (502) 564-5037 E-mail: lindam.keeton@ky.gov The Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC is represented by: Megan Pullem O'Reilly, Esq. BLACKBURN, DOMENE & BURCHETT PLLC 614 W. Main Street, Suite 3000 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 584-1600 Facsimile: (502) 584-9971 E-mail: moreilly@bdblawky.com MACROCURE LTD: "Lax" Suit Alleges Securities Violations in Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- HELENE LAX, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOMER KARIV, DAVID BEN AMI, ZEEV BRONFELD, RANAN GROBMAN, KATHERINE WOLF, YUVAL YANAI, MACROCURE LTD., and LEAP THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 09438-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2016), accuses Defendants of issuing a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement and prospectus in connection with the proposed merger between Macrocure and Leap. The case alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act. Macrocure is a biotechnology company focused on developed cell therapy products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Fax: 212-686-0114 Email: gmn@whafh.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-601-2610 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Nixes Fans' Suit Over Safety Net ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint, in the case GAIL PAYNE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03229-YGR (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs assert six claims: (1) negligence; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. (UCL); (4) violation of California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (CLRA); (5) violation of California Civil Code Section 1668; and (6) personal injury. For Counts 1 through 5, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of the class. Count 6 is plaintiff Smith's personal and individual claim for damages based on negligence, arising from the personal injury that she suffered on June 7, 2015, when hit by a ball at Dodgers Stadium. Plaintiffs Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith assert these claims against the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball d/b/a Major League Baseball (MLB), its acting Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr., and all 30 MLB teams. Plaintiff Payne alleges that she experiences fear as a result of the lack of netting at these stadiums. She testified that she fears for her safety and feels like she's in imminent danger of being hit by a ball when attending games at the Oakland Coliseum sitting in certain sections of the stadium that are unprotected by netting because foul balls sometimes enter in these sections. Payne recounted an instance when she might have been hit by a foul ball that came into her section if she had not ducked out of its way. Notwithstanding her experience, Payne has never been injured at an A's game at the Oakland Coliseum. She plans to attend future games at the Coliseum, but cannot say on which dates and has not purchased any tickets yet. Plaintiff Smith testified that she is afraid of attending baseball games, but her fear is grounded in a serious injury she sustained while attending a Dodgers game in June 2015. She has not attended any games in California since that time, turning down invitations due to her fear. She does not intend to attend any future games. However, she would consider attending future games if netting were expanded. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims for injunctive relief, as their risk of future injury is speculative and not sufficiently immediate. On April 8, 2016, the court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss against the non-California-based Clubs for lack of personal jurisdiction, but deferred its ruling on the remainder of the motion to allow for limited jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing related to the issue of standing. The court allowed discovery related to the probability that a given individual, seated in plaintiffs' specific sections at the two California stadiums in question, would be hit by a stray ball or bat in the course of a given game or season. Judge Rogers granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The court concludes that plaintiff Payne does not have standing to bring her claims and dismisses Counts 1- 5 with respect to Payne. Unlike Payne, plaintiff Smith was actually injured while attending an L.A. Dodgers game in Los Angeles on June 7, 2015. Nevertheless, the analysis with respect to standing for Counts 1-5 is similar. Smith's fear, while understandable, is not supported by data showing injury to be likely to reoccur, and such is insufficient for standing under Counts 1-5. The fact that plaintiff Smith has already been injured by a foul ball before does not increase her risk of injury in future. In fact, her awareness of the risks associated with stadium distractions arguably reduces her risk compared to the average attendee. The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Smith as well. Having dismissed Counts 1-5 with respect to both plaintiffs Payne and Smith on the threshold issue of standing, the court need not evaluate defendants' other proffered bases for dismissal. On count 6, plaintiff Smith has not specified against which defendant or defendants she brought her personal injury claim. As her injury occurred at the Los Angeles Dodgers stadium, the court analyzes her claim as against the Los Angeles Dodgers. First, the Los Angeles Dodgers are a resident of the Central District of California, not the Northern District of California. Therefore, venue is improper here under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(1). Second, Smith sustained her injury in Los Angeles, which means that no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Northern District of California. Third, plaintiff may bring her claim in the Central District of California. Accordingly, the court dismisses Count 6 on improper venue grounds. Judge Rogers dismisses without leave to amend counts 1-5 for lack of standing and dismisses without prejudice or leave to amend count 6, plaintiff Smith's individual claim for negligence in connection with her personal injury. A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated November 16, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/lXeGXt from Leagle.com. Gail Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Anthea Grivas -- antheag@hbsslaw.com -- Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion Magdalene Reilly -- Robert Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP Stephanie Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion Magdalene Reilly -- Robert Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP Robert Gorman, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion Magdalene Reilly -- Robert Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, The Oakland Athletics, The Toronto Blue Jays, The San Francisco Giants, The San Diego Padres, The Los Angeles Dodgers, Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, San Francisco Giants Enterprises LLC, San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P., Oakland Athletics Limited Partnership, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Robert D. Manfred, Jr., and Angels Baseball LP, Defendants, represented by John Watkins Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Philip James Tassin -- ptassin@kvn.com -- Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@kvn.com -- Thomas Edward Gorman -- tgorman@kvn.com -- at Keker & Van Nest LLP The Seattle Mariners, The Texas Rangers, The Kansas City Royals, The Minnesota Twins, The Houston Astros, The Detroit Tigers, The Cleveland Indians, The Chicago White Sox, The New York Yankees, The Tampa Bay Rays, The Boston Red Sox, The Baltimore Orioles, The Colorado Rockies, The Arizona Diamondbacks, The St. Louis Cardinals, The Pittsburg Pirates, The Milwaukee Brewers, The Cincinnati Reds, The Chicago Cubs, The Washington Nationals, The New York Mets, The Miami Marlins, The Atlantic Braves, Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC, Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Limited, Rangers Baseball Express LLC, St. Louis Cardinals LLC, The Baseball Club of Seattle LLP, Pittsburgh Associates, LP, The Philadelphia Phillies, New York Yankees Partnership, Sterling Mets, L.P., Minnesota Twins Baseball Club, Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, L.P., Miami Marlins, L.P., Kansas City Royals, Houston Astros, LLC, Detroit Tigers, Inc., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership, The Cincinnati Reds LLC, Chicago White Sox Ltd., Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC, Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership, Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership, Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc., and Arizona Professional Baseball LP, Defendant, represented by John Watkins Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Philip James Tassin -- ptassin@kvn.com -- at Keker & Van Nest LLP MARS INC: E.D. Pa. Judge Sends FACTA Suit to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case COLLEEN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff. v. MARS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-4035 (E.D. Pa.) Mars, Inc. is a large manufacturer of food products, with its most recognizable brand being M & M chocolates. It is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered in McLean, Virginia and s has a subsidiary, Mars Drinks, LLC, headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania and incorporated in Delaware. Mars operates M & M themed stores in New York, Nevada, and Florida. Colleen Campbell visited the Times Square M & M store in New York on July 23, 2016 and made a purchase with her credit card. The computer generated receipt she received displayed the first six digits and last four digits of her credit card number. On July 27, 2016, Campbell brought a putative class action suit against Mars, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1). Mars filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. Judge Stengel granted defendant's motion to dismiss as the present court lacks personal jurisdiction over the subject matter and transferred the case to the Southern District of New York. The court cannot exercise general jurisdiction over Mars in Pennsylvania, Judge Stengel said. Mars is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Virginia. The Pennsylvania market comprises less than 8% of Mars's total sales. And the contacts of Mars Drinks, a subsidiary of Mars located in West Chester, Pennsylvania, do not reach a sufficient magnitude to render Mars's contacts so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in Pennsylvania. A copy of Judge Stengel's memorandum dated November 22, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/QLhqgf from Leagle.com. COLLEEN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by: ERIC G. ZAJAC, Esq. ZAJAC ARIAS & TRICHON PC 1835 Market Street, 26th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-575-7615 Facsimile: 215-575-7640 MARS, INC., Defendant, represented by GINA ROSWELL -- groswell@brownconnery.com -- STEPHEN J. DEFEO -- sdefeo@brownconnery.com -- at BROWN & CONNERY LLP; CHRISTOPHER ALAN SUAREZ -- csuarez@wc.com -- KENNETH J. BROWN -- kbrown@wc.com -- at WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP MCKESSON CORP: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Veronica L. Hunt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McKesson Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01390, (W.D. Pa., December 8, 2016), seeks money damages in an amount equal to the overtime compensation they are due; liquidated damages; interest; reasonable attorney fees and costs; and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. McKesson Corporation is headquartered at One Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. It provides pharmaceutical, medical supplies and health care solutions for medical providers, pharmacies, health plans and manufacturers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a SalesForce.com Administrator on or about October 1, 2014. She is currently titled as a Marketing Research analyst, normally working in excess of 50 hours each week without overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 227-0763 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Tel: (412) 278-1280 Email: linklaw@comcast.net MDL 1917: Chunghwa Settlement Allocation Plan Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California granted final approval of the Chunghwa settlement allocation plan, in the case entitled IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS, Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.) The case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a core component of tube-style screens for common devices including televisions and computer monitors. The conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007, which involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and allegedly resulted in overcharges of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and sold CRTs or finished products containing CRTs for purposes such as personal use. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (IPPs) settled with Chunghwa for $10,000,000 in 2011. The Chunghwa settlement postponed approval of the allocation of funds pending additional settlements with the remaining defendants. On July 7, 2016, the court granted final approval of the settlements between the IPPs and those other defendants. In the same order, the court preliminarily approved the Chunghwa settlement allocation plan and notice procedures, but ordered that the claim period be reopened for 120 days for resellers in the 24 Chunghwa settlement states. The court gave resellers 60 days to object to the settlement because they had not been given notice of the plan or the opportunity to file claims. The IPPs have submitted a memorandum of points and authorities in support of final approval of the Chunghwa Settlement allocation plan, stating that that notice was provided in accordance with the court's order. The IPPs have proposed that each state's pro rata share will be divided 50/50 between resellers and end-users, and then distributed to reseller and end-user claimants on a pro rata basis. Under the plan, payment amounts will be based on the number of valid claims filed, as well as on the number and type of CRT Products purchased. Judge Tigar granted final approval of the Chunghwa settlement allocation plan, lifted the stay on the distribution of funds, and authorized plaintiffs to distribute the settlement funds to class members. Under the Chunghwa settlement, funds will be distributed to claimants in 24 states pro rata in accordance with those states' respective populations in 2000. The Attorneys General of Illinois and Oregon will be allocated 8.59% and 2.37% of the Net Settlement Fund, respectively. The Attorneys General will distribute those monies to residents of Illinois and Oregon, with the remaining funds distributed to claimants in the other 22 states. Objections to the 50/50 allocation were considered and rejected by the court in its July 7 order, and no additional objections have been received. As the court recognized, although it is possible that a more precise allocation plan could be fashioned, undertaking such an effort would be time consuming and costly. Moreover, the standard of review requires only an allocation plan that has a reasonable, rational basis, it does not require the best possible plan of allocation. The court sees no reason to change its conclusion that the 50/50 allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated November 16, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/1PAEqC from Leagle.com. Mr. Martin Quinn, Special Master, Pro Se Crago, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated dba Dash Computers, Inc. a Kansas City corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Ashlei Melissa Vargas -- Clifford H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Jonathan Mark Watkins -- Aaron M. Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- at Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- at Saveri & Saveri, Inc.; Christopher Wilson -- Daniel D. Owen -- dowen@polsinelli.com -- Patrick John Brady -- jbrady@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli Shughart PC; Esther L. Klisura -- eklisura@slenvironment.com -- at SL Environmental Law Group PC; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business, Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian -- betty.julian@mccormickbarstow.com -- at McCormick Barstow LLP; Cadio R. Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Geoffrey Conrad Rushing -- GRushing@saveri.com -- Gianna Christa Gruenwald -- Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- at at Saveri & Saveri, Inc.; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Fred A. Silva -- fsilva@damrell.com -- Clinton Paul Walker -- Kathy Lee Monday -- kmonday@damrell.com -- Roger Martin Schrimp -- rschrimp@damrell.com -- at Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R. Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Geoffrey Conrad Rushing -- GRushing@saveri.com -- Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- at at Saveri & Saveri, Inc.; Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Randy R. Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- at Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP; Terry Gross -- terry@gba-law.com -- Adam C. Belsky -- adam@gba- law.com -- Monique Alonso -- monique@gba-law.com -- Sarah Crowley -- at Gross Belsky Alonso LLP Jeffrey Figone, a California resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry -- bribarry1@yahoo.com -- at Law Offices of Brian Barry; Dennis Stewart -- dstewart@hulettharper.com -- Julie A. Kearns -- at Hulett Harper Stewart LLP; Donald L. Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- Gerard A. Dever -- gdever@finekaplan.com -- Matthew Duncan -- mduncan@finekaplan.com -- at Fine Kaplan & Black RPC; Jeffrey Chad Shea -- sheaj_2000@yahoo.com -- at Jeffrey Chad Shea, Attorney at Law; Joseph Goldberg -- JG@FBDLAW.com -- Josh Ewing -- Vincent J. Ward -- VJW@FBDLAW.com -- at Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA; Veronica Besmer -- veronica@besmerlaw.com -- Besmer Law Firm; Joseph Mario Patane -- Lauren Clare Capurro -- laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Mario Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP Chad Klebs, a Minnesota resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt -- ccorbitt@zelle.com -- Christopher Thomas Micheletti -- cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- Qianwei Fu -- qfu@zelle.com -- at Zelle LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Francis Onofrei Scarpulla -- fos@scarpullalaw.com -- Patrick Bradford Clayton -- at Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla; Jennie Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Lori Erin Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com -- at Andrus Anderson LLP; Mario Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP; Richard Michael Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- at Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Susan Gilah Kupfer -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Lindsey H. Taylor -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- at Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C.; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Marisa C. Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Betsy Carol Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Francis M. Gregorek -- Gregorek@whafh.com -- Rachele R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Carmen Gonzalez, a California resident, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis -- jmcmanis@mcmanislaw.com -- Marwa Elzankaly -- melzankaly@mcmanislaw.com -- at McManis Faulkner; Mario Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum Margaret Slagle, a Vermont resident, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,Gary Hanson, a North Dakota resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, John Larch, a West Virginia resident, David G. Norby, a Minnesota resident, Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, and Samuel J. Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel Flom -- joel@flomlaw.com -- at Jeffries Olson & Flom PA; Joseph Mario Patane -- Lauren Clare Capurro -- laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Mario Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Kenneth Leo Valinoti -- at Valinoti & Dito LLP; Lawrence Genaro Papale -- at Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale; Robert B. Gerard -- at Gerard Selden & Osuch; Sherman Kassof -- heevay@yahoo.com -- at Law Offices of Sherman Kassof; M. Eric Frankovitch -- Michael G. Simon -- at Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon; Seymour J. Mansfield -- smansfield@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield Barry Kushner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr., -- Joseph M. Alioto, Sr. -- Angelina Alioto-Grace -- Theresa Driscoll Moore -- at Alioto Law Firm; Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- at Karon LLC; Daniel Joseph Mulligan -- at St. James Recovery Services, P.C.; Derek G. Howard -- derek@dhowlaw.com -- at Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc.; Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- at Chestnut & Cambronne Brian A. Luscher, a Arizona resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr., Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Steven Ganz, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC Dana Ross, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Brigid Terry, a Wisconsin resident, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Southern Office Supply, Inc, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Donna F. Solen, Lexington Law Group, Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Meijer, Inc., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group PC, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff, represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Collin R. White, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, is a business headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri and Saveri Inc., Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Matthew Dickinson Heaphy, Saveri and Saveri, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson, Charles M. Thompson, P.C., Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson, Charles M. Thompson, P.C., Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N. Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Matthew Duncan, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Mark, Attorney General of Washington, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, David P. Chiappetta, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Alfred H. Siegel, Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Gillett, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Matthew C. Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Kenneth S. Marks Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner. KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Christina Maria Ceballos-Levy, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T. Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Christina Maria Ceballos-Levy, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T. Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Giovanni Constabile, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters. Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Colin C. West, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP Janet Ackerman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Chad Shea, Attorney at Law Gloria Comeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP Jeff Speaect, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew David Kent, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J. Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J. Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P. Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA JEFF CRAIG, Plaintiff, Pro se MINA ASHKANNEJHAD, Plaintiff, Pro se INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASS, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm Eleanor Lewis, Plaintiff, Pro se Kirby McInerney LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law Group Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., ("Chunghwa Malaysia") is a Malaysian company, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., ("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese company, Defendants, represented by Joel Steven Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Austin Van Schwing -- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP; David C. Brownstein -- dbrownstein@fbj-law.com -- Jacob P. Alpren -- jalpren@fbj-law.com -- William S. Farmer -- wfarmer@fbj- law.com -- at Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson -- eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik - - james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Douglas L. Wald -- douglas.wald@aporter.com -- Sharon D. Mayo -- sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; Katherine Hamilton Wheaton; Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com - - at White & Case; Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP; John M. Taladay -- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel Swenson -- jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; Michael W. Scarborough -- mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Steven Alan Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Hitachi America, Ltd., ("Hitachi America") is a New York company, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson -- eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik -- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP; Katherine Hamilton Wheaton; Michael W. Scarborough -- mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Hitachi Asia, Ltd., ("Hitachi Asia") is a Singaporean company, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson -- eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik -- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Barack Shem Echols -- barack.echols@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- Steven Alan Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP; Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- at White & Case; Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP; John M. Taladay -- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel Swenson -- jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; Michael W. Scarborough -- mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Sharon D. Mayo -- sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- Douglas L. Wald -- douglas.wald@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., (IDDC), and Irico Group Corp., (IGC) are Chinese entities, Defendants, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II -- at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Panasonic Corporation of North America, (PCNA) is a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai -- david.yohai@weil.com -- Bambo Obaro -- bambo.obaro@weil.com -- David E. Yolkut -- david.yolkut@weil.com -- Kajetan Rozga -- kajetan.rozga@weil.com -- Kevin B. Goldstein -- kevin.goldstein@weil.com -- Lara Elvidge Veblen -- lara.trager@weil.com -- Ryan Michael Goodland -- ryan.goodland@weil.com -- Steven A. Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com -- Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP; Eva W. Cole -- ewcole@winston.com -- A. Paul Victor -- pvictor@winston.com -- Aldo A. Badini -- abadini@winston.com -- James F. Lerner -- jlerner@winston.com -- Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Jennifer Stewart -- jstewart@winston.com - - John Selim Tschirgi -- jtschirgi@winston.com -- Martin C. Geagan, Jr. -- mgeagan@winston.com -- Matthew Robert DalSanto -- mdalsanto@winston.com -- Molly Donovan -- mmdonovan@winston.com -- Sofia Arguello -- sarguello@winston.com -- at Winston and Strawn LLP; Amy Lee Stewart -- astewart@roselawfirm.com -- at Rose Law Firm; Andrew R. Tillman -- at Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman; Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- at White & Case; Douglas L. Wald -- douglas.wald@aporter.com -- Sharon D. Mayo -- sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; John Clayton Everett, Jr. -- clay.everett@morganlewis.com -- Kent Michael Roger -- kent.roger@morganlewis.com -- Michelle Park Chiu -- michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com -- Scott A. Stempel -- scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- atMorgan, Lewis Bockius LLP; John M. Taladay -- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel Swenson -- jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; Margaret Anne Keane -- margaret.keane@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant, represented by William Diaz -- wdiaz@mwe.com -- at McDermott Will & Emery LLP Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., ("BMCC") is a Chinese company, Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., ("LGEUSA") is a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Brad D. Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Laura K. Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Philips Electronics North America Corporation, ("PENAC") is a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts, Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, ("SEC") is a South Korean company, Defendant, represented by Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C. Byrd, pro hac vice, David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP Samsung Electronics America, Inc., ("SEAI") is a New York corporation, Defendant, represented by Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Courtney C. Byrd, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP MT Picture Display Co., LTD, fka Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd. ("MTPD") is a Japanese entity, Defendant, represented by A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & David L. Yohai Panasonic Corporation, fka Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M. Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), ("HEDUS") is a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., ("Philips Brazil") is a Brazilian company, Defendant, represented by Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., ("HEDUS") is a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Koninklijke Philips N.V., "KPNV", Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts, Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Laura K. Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M. Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant, represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, pro hac vice & William H. Bave, III, pro hac vice. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, pro hac vice, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., also known as Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Emily E. Chow, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley Thomson S.A., also known as Technicolor SA, Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Emily E. Chow, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Jason de Bretteville, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC Alan Frankel, Respondent, Pro se Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew Moore, Attorney at Law Newegg Inc., Interested Party, represented by Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Litigation Law Group Atty for Non-Party Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Interested Party, represented by Dianne L. Sweeney, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Sean Hull, Individual, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer & Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP. Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP Gordon Morgan, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP Douglas W. St. John, Objector, represented by Andrea Marie Valdez, Andrea Valdez, Esq. & Joseph Scott St. John. Dan L. Williams & Co., Objector, represented by Paul Brian Justi, Law Offices of Paul B. Justi John Finn, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905 Denver, CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C. Laura Fortman, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905 Denver, CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C. Rockhurst University, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm Gary Talewsky, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm Harry Garavanian, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm Paul Palmer, Individual, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer. Donnie Clifton, Objector, represented by Jan Leigh Westfall, Law Offices of Jan Westfall. Josie Saik, Objector, represented by George Cochran MR brian barry, Objector, Pro Se MR brian barry, Objector, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law Offices of Brian Barry Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company, Inc. and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company, LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer Electronics, LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner State of Connecticut, George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General, Miscellaneous, represented by Gary Becker, Attorney General of Connecticut Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Miscellaneous, represented by Matthew Mark Lyons, Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Miscellaneous, represented by James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C. State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop, Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois Attorney General State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon Department of Justice MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Elfaridi" Suit Alleges Defective Sun Roof ------------------------------------------------------------- Said Elfaridi, Hend Aitoufella, Dean Jarman, and Katherine Jarman on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Daimler AG, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01896 (E.D. Mo., December 5, 2016), seeks actual damages, punitive damages, and/or any other form of monetary relief, restitution, disgorgement and or other equitable relief, repair of defective panoramic sunroofs, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees and such other and further relief for breach of implied and express warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Mercedes through its various entities designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Mercedes automobiles in Missouri and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. Mercedes and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed the panoramic sunroofs in the Class Vehicles. Mercedes also developed and disseminated the owner's manuals and warranty booklets, advertisements, and other promotional materials relating to the Class Vehicles. Defendant Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a foreign corporation headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling, and distributing motor vehicles. Plaintiffs are owners of vehicles made by the Defendants and allege that their panoramic sun roofs spontaneously tend to shatter during the course of normal use. Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah S. Burns, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259-2222 Facsimile: (618) 259-2251 Email: sburns@simmonsfirm.com - and - Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 Email: phanly@simmonsfirm.com mbreit@simmonsfirm.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 533-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq. SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A Chesterfield, MO 63005 Telephone: (636) 733-6647 Facsimile: (636) 537-2599 MERCER HEALTH: "Stapf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH STAPF, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCER HEALTH & BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC643007 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages of under $5,000,000.00 pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the Labor Code, causing damages to Plaintiff, and the other members of the California Labor Sub-Class. These damages include, but are not limited to, costs expended calculating the true time worked and the amount of employment taxes which were not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages are difficult to estimate. Therefore, Plaintiff, and the other members of the California Labor Sub-Class may elect to recover liquidated damages of $50.00 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and $100.00 for each violation in subsequent pay period pursuant to Labor Code, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00 for Plaintiff and each respective member of the California Labor Sub-Class). Mercer provides benefits consulting and brokerage services. The company provides health and benefits services, including benefits design and delivery, benchmarking and data analysis, outsourcing, and compliance. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551 1223 Facsimile: (858) 551 1232 Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com MIDLAND CREDIT: "Lopera" Suit Can't Proceed as Class ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted defendant's motion to strike class allegation in the case FERNANDO LOPERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-1448-T-33JSS (M.D. Fla.) On June 6, 2016, Fernando Lopera filed a putative class action complaint, alleging that Midland Credit Management, Inc. violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. The court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after Lopera failed to respond to two orders for status report. On August 19, 2016, Lopera requested the court to reopen the case and explained that he did not receive the court's orders because counsel's contact information with the clerk was out-of-date. The court granted Lopera's motion and the case was reopened on August 22, 2016. On September 26, 2016, Lopera filed a notice, styled as a letter to the court, in which Lopera requested an extension of time to move for class certification and complete discovery. The court struck that notice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(f), which requires all requests for relief to be filed in the form of a motion, and 3.01(g), which requires that the moving party confer with opposing counsel before filing a motion. The following day Midland filed its motion to strike the class allegations in the complaint. On October 12, 2016, Lopera filed his response and cross-motion for extension of time to move for class certification. Judge Hernandez Covington granted defendant's motion to strike the class allegation in the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross- motion for extension of time to move for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 4.04(b), M.D. Fla., within ninety days of filing the complaint, a plaintiff shall move for a determination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) as to whether the case is to be maintained as a class action, unless the time is extended by the Court for cause shown. As the complaint was filed on June 6, 2016, a motion to move for class certification or motion for extension of time to seek class certification was due by September 6, 2016. However, Lopera did not file a motion by that date. On September 26, 2016, Lopera filed a notice, requesting an extension of time to move for class certification, in violation of the Local Rules. After the notice was stricken, Lopera did not immediately resubmit his request in a proper motion. Rather, on October 12, 2016, Lopera included his cross-motion to extend the class certification deadline in his response to Midland's motion to strike. Thus, Lopera did not properly move for an extension of time until over a month after the ninety day deadline had passed. A copy of Judge Hernandez Covington's order dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/X9DwD7 from Leagle.com. Fernando Lopera, Plaintiff, represented by: Alex A. Stern, Esq. 1300 Washington Ave, #191625 Little Guy Law Firm Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: 305-900-5489 - and - Joseph Karl Jones, Esq. Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC 555 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 646-459-7971 Facsimile: 646-459-7973 Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory W. Eichhorn -- cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Erica S. Gooden -- erica.bartimmo@hklaw.com -- at Holland & Knight, LLP Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli -- at Peter J. Grilli, PA MINOR LEAGUE: Establishes Political Committee to Fight Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Josh Norri, writing for Baseball America, reports that in its continued effort to fight a lawsuit brought by a group of former players seeking increased wages and back pay, Minor League Baseball on Dec. 5 announced the establishment of a political action committee. MiLB president Pat O'Conner and Stan Brand, the league's chief legal counsel, announced the creation of the PAC at the opening session of this year's Winter Meetings. The goal of the PAC, Brand said, was to lobby Congress for help the league's "legislative issues." "I think it's everything," Mr. Brand said. "And . . . while (the players' lawsuit is) the most immediate and pressing, it's probably true that we're going to face this down the road in some other format. Rather than, as I said, wait to remobilize, we're going to be proactive, get engaged, get our troops engaged, get an infrastructure in place that allows us to immediately respond." The league scored a significant victory this summer when the judge presiding over the case in district court in San Francisco ruled that the players' suit, as it was constructed, could not proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The logic behind the ruling was that the minor league experience varied so starkly from player to player that it would be difficult to apply one ruling to all cases. Specifically, the players are seeking the enforcement of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which entitles workers to a minimum wage, which varies in each state. Minor league players are not covered by this law, however, and as result are paid very little. Minor league salaries begin at around $1,100 per month at the lowest levels, and the players are paid only in-season. They do not get paid during spring training, instructional league or in the Arizona Fall League. Phillies farmhand Dylan Cozens told the crowd assembled to watch him receive his Joe Baumann Award for leading the minor leagues in home runs that the $8,000 prize that came with the honor was more than he made all season. In response to the judge's ruling, the players, whose legal team is led by former player and now lawyer Garrett Broshuis, re-formatted their case to include only players who spend all season in one state. For example, those who play in the Rookie- level Arizona and Gulf Coast Leagues, and the high Class A Florida State and California Leagues. Those players' wages would fall under one minimum wage all season long, and their experiences would be uniform enough to possibly qualify for inclusion in a class-action lawsuit. Minor league baseball's caucus in Congress has turned over considerably since its creation, and the establishment of the PAC is part of an effort to reorganize the league's presence on Capitol Hill. "Because of procedurally what has happened in the Congress and the difficulties in getting legislation, we've got to adjust to that," Mr. Brand said. "We were lucky. We had the ability because of the depth of the relationships and involvement in the communities to not have to worry about that. And now we do, I think. The PAC . . . gives us another tool to re-enforce who we are and why we're important." This summer, two Congressional representatives -- Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) -- introduced the Save America's Pastime Bill, which was designed to combat the players' lawsuit. After receiving intense pressure on social media, Ms. Bustos dropped her support for the bill. O'Conner threw his support behind the bill at the time. "Minor League Baseball would like to thank Congressman Guthrie and Congresswoman Bustos for their leadership on this issue facing Minor League Baseball and for gathering bipartisan Congressional support," he said. "For over 115 years, Minor League Baseball has been a staple of American communities, large and small, and with the help of Congressman Guthrie, Congresswoman Bustos and other members of Congress, it will remain so for years to come." MNM PROPERTIES: "Saucedo" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN SAUCEDO, FELIPE GARCIA ARROYO, JUAN LUIS REYES GARCIA, and JOSE ROBERTO CUATEPITZI HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MNM PROPERTIES LP (d/b/a MNM PROPERTIES), MNM PROPERTIES LLC (d/b/a MNM PROPERTIES), MITCHELL BANCHIK, and MICHAEL ASCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 09413 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2016), was filed to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 NAPOLI'S PASTARIA: "Crespo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Alleges Tax Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marcus Crespo, Jeremiah Rivera, Isreal Alvarenga and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steve and Tara's Italian Restaurant, Inc. doing business as Napoli's Pastaria, Steve Barry, Individually and Tara Barry, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01520 (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover damages for retaliation and unpaid back wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Steve and Tara's Italian Restaurant, Inc. operates as Napoli's Pastaria where Plaintiffs worked as cooks and cleaners. They claim to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiffs also file civil damages for fraudulent filing of information returns under the IRS by failing to properly record all wage payments made to Plaintiffs and pay FICA and other applicable employment taxes on their behalf. The Plaintiff is represented by: Earl M. Johnson, Jr., Esq. Post Office Box 40091 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Tel: (904) 356-5252 Fax: (904) 394-3288 Email: jaxlawfl@aol.com - and - Alex King, Esq. 200 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tel: (904) 355-7777 Email: A1ex@HodgesKing.com Pleadings@HodgesKing.com NBTY INC: Court Trims Claims in "Porter" Suit --------------------------------------------- District Judge Manish S. Shah of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss, in the case RYAN PORTER and HAARIN KWON, Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, INC., UNITED STATES NUTRITION, INC., HEALTHWATCHERS (DE), INC., and MET-RX NUTRITION, INC., Defendants, No. 15 CV 11459 (N.D. Ill.) Defendant NBTY, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, United States Nutrition, Inc., Healthwatchers (DE), Inc., and Met-Rx Nutrition, Inc., manufactured and sold the protein supplements Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein, Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Isolate, and Met-Rx MyoSynthesis Whey. Plaintiff Ryan Porter bought Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein from at least two different retail stores in Illinois. Plaintiff Haarin Kwon, a New York citizen, ordered the same product from Amazon.com. Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of a nationwide class under consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, New York, and eight other states, as well as claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a practice known as protein-spiking, nitrogen-spiking, or amino- spiking in the manufacture of its whey protein products. According to plaintiffs, because the products' labeling highlighted the protein content, defendants should have used an alternative method to calculate these amounts. That alternative method, the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score, measures the protein quality of the food and requires the manufacturer to determine the amount of essential amino acids contained within the product. The digestibility-corrected score provides a more precise measurement of the protein content of the product, excluding free-form amino acids and other non-protein ingredients. Because defendants used the nitrogen-based measurement rather than the alternative method, the protein- content statements on their products' labels were based on the additional ingredients. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants used the terms protein and whey protein interchangeably on the products' packaging, leading consumers to believe that every statement of the products' protein content referred to whey protein in particular. Because the statements overstated the amount of whey protein contained in the products, plaintiffs believe the statements were false and misleading. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Judge Shah granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under New York law and their breach of express warranty claims are dismissed, as are any claims relating to products they did not purchase. Under both the UCC and Illinois law, a plaintiff buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs' counsel served defendants with such pre-suit notice in the form of a letter, attaching that letter to the complaint. However, as defendants point out, plaintiffs' counsel sent the letter on behalf of a nonparty, Dalton Becky, and a class of all similarly situated purchasers of Body Fortress Protein Powder. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty are dismissed because, despite their arguments to the contrary, plaintiffs do not allege that they provided defendants with pre-suit notice. The letter was no notice at all because it was not from plaintiffs. One purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement is to facilitate settlement of the buyer's claim. Plaintiffs' failure to notify defendants of the breach defeats that purpose, defendants did not know that the plaintiffs contested a transaction. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is based on the same allegations that serve as the bases for their claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, defendants deceived plaintiffs using misleading labeling. Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their unjust enrichment claim without also meeting the elements of their statutory claims. To the extent that the claims succeed, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative. If plaintiffs' other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects. A copy of Judge Shah's memorandum opinion and order dated November 28, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/9jbmry from Leagle.com. Ryan Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Richard Lane Miller, II -- rmiller@siprut.com -- Richard Steven Wilson -- rwilson@siprut.com -- at Siprut PC; Frederick J. Klorczyk III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Philip L. Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.; Nick Suciu, III -- nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- at Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC Haarin Kwon, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick J. Klorczyk III - - fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Philip L. Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A. United States Nutrition, Inc. and NBTY, Inc., Defendants, represented by Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn -- rblackburn@aandglaw.com -- Robert M. Andalman -- randalman@aandglaw.com -- at A & G Law LLC; William A. Delgado -- wdelgado@willenken.com -- at Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP Met-Rx Nutrition, Inc. and Healthwatchers (DE), Inc., Defendants, represented by Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn -- rblackburn@aandglaw.com -- Robert M. Andalman -- randalman@aandglaw.com -- at A & G Law LLC NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Huang" Class Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC. The case is captioned Li Huang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06763-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., December 7, 2016). The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC engages in the online sale of designer apparel, shoes, handbags, jewelry, and beauty products. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com NZK PRODUCTIONS: Eckert Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- CONNOR ECKERT, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. NZK PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC643017 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor Code (Labor Code); the California Business and Professions Code; and the California Industrial Welfare Commission. According to the complaint, with regard to Defendants' California based Production Assistants, the Defendants have failed to provide timely uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods; failed to authorize and permit all paid rest periods; failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code; and conducted unfair business practices. NZK Productions is a motion picture and tape distribution company located in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (323) 857 5900 OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner Loses Bid to Compel Production of Docs -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the Eastern District of California, denied plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents, in the case DAVID WEINER, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-2597 MCE DB (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawfully charging marked up prices on broker price opinions (BPOs') and titles searches to borrowers in default, and engaged in a scheme to disguise hidden, marked-up fees assessed to homeowners in default on their mortgages. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, defendants funnel default-related services, including BPOs and title searches through their affiliated businesses and mark up the cost of these services. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and seeks further production of documents with respect to documents numbers120, 121, 129 and 6. Requests for production of documents numbers 129 and 6 seeks defendants' internal communications relating to their decision to spin-off third-party Altisource Solutions S.A. Requests for production of documents numbers 120 and 121 seek documents produced by defendants to the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) which ultimately led to a consent order between defendants and the NYDFS. Plaintiff argues that the internal communications discovery is highly relevant to class-certification, because defendants' motivation for spinning-off Altisource bears directly on their classwide intent to fraudulently conceal marked-up default-related costs from consumers. With respect to the documents defendants produced to the NYDFS, plaintiff argues that such discovery requests bear directly on the uniformity of defendants' practices, fraudulent intent, classwide evidence of the RICO enterprise, as well as establishing the scope of the fraudulent practices and the precise timeframe. Plaintiff asserts that the discovery at issue has such a significant bearing on issues such as predominance and commonality, that the fact that the information simultaneously concerns the merits is insignificant and provides defendant no basis to refuse to respond. In support of such argument, plaintiff quotes Lindell v. Synthes USA, No. 1:11-cv-2053 LJO BAM, 2013 WL 3146806. Plaintiff also cites Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co., 312 F.R.D. 528, 535, in support of the argument that the timeframe for the scheme, the geographic and substantive scope, and the nature of the borrowers impacted all factor into the formulation of the class definition. Magistrate Judge Barnes denied plaintiff's motion to compel observing that plaintiff did not articulate how the discovery at issue bears on predominance or commonality, aside from speculative and conclusory statements such as if the requested communications reveal a common practice applied uniformly to plaintiff and all class members, it strongly supports class certification." The discovery at issue in Lindell, however, was interrogatories and requests for production of documents seeking specific, targeted, information related to expense reimbursement and wage deductions for the entire class. In this case, plaintiff is not seeking specific, targeted information about the potential class. Plaintiff is seeking defendants' internal communications concerning its business decision and all documents produced to the NYDFS in another action. Another observation made by the Magistrate Judge is that plaintiff has done little to explain precisely how he thinks the discovery at issue will establish a timeframe for the scheme, its geographic and substantive scope, or the nature of the borrowers impacted. In analyzing the plaintiff's motion for class certification in Bias, the court did not reference any discovery similar to that plaintiff seeks in the case. Instead, the Bias court focused on the evidence that seems, to the undersigned, plainly relevant to class certification. A copy of Judge Barnes's order dated November 22, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/wz7ZLV from Leagle.com. David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone -- dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland Karim Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Evan M. Zucker -- ezucker@baronbudd.com - - Peter Klausner -- pklausner@baronbudd.com -- Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Isaac Miller -- at Branstetter Stranch & Jennings Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- Ashley Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- Catalina Joos Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- Erika Maki Rasch -- erasch@omm.com -- James Abbott Bowman -- jbowman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP OMNI LIMOUSINE: Mooney Suit Stayed Pending McSwiggin Case --------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the District of Nevada, granted defendant's motion to stay in the case RONALD KEEN and ROBIN MOONEY, Plaintiffs, v. OMNI LIMOUSINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01903-JCM-GWF (D. Nev.) Plaintiffs Ronald Keen and Robin Mooney filed a collective and class action complaint on August 10, 2016. Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, various causes of action against Omni Limousine for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Nevada Revised Statutes, and the Nevada Constitution. Prior to the lawsuit, a case entitled McSwiggin v. Omni Limousine, Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK, was already filed asserting essentially identical claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The plaintiffs in the McSwiggin matter sought an extension of the deadlines for providing notice and opting in to the litigation on November 10, 2015 but counsel's inexcusable neglect made the judge to deny the request to extend the opt-in deadline on July 29, 2016. The district court did, however, advise the plaintiffs' counsel that its ruling did not prohibit prospective plaintiffs from pursuing litigation against Omni individually or as members to a separate collective action. Currently pending in the McSwiggin case is plaintiff's motion to certify class and Omni's motion for decertification. Based on the motions filed in McSwiggin, Omni requests that the matter be stayed pending the resolution of the motions because they will affect the instant litigation. Omni argues that a stay is warranted under the first-to-file rule because the current matter is duplicative of McSwiggin and should not be used by plaintiffs' counsel to hedge their bets in the event the McSwiggin matter is not certified. Omni additionally asserts that a stay of the case will avoid burdensome and unnecessary expenses for both parties. Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay of the case. They do, however, request that if a stay is granted, that the court toll the statute of limitations so that the rights of putative opt-in plaintiffs will be protected. Magistrate Judge Foley granted defendant's motion to stay and the case shall be stayed until such time as the court deems it appropriate to lift the stay, which it will do once the district court rules on the motions pending in McSwiggin v. Omni Limousine, Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK. The statute of limitations shall be tolled until the court determines that a stay is no longer necessary. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations will eliminate any prejudice suffered by potential plaintiffs and preserve their claims that will otherwise be lost as a result of the stay. The court finds that the best way to avoid any unnecessary burdens and expenses and to ensure the rights of any potential class member who would choose to, and have the right to, opt-in at a later date would be to stay the matter and toll the statute of limitations until the court determines it is appropriate to proceed with the merits of the case. A copy of Magistrate Judge Foley's order dated November 18, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/aYvF6P from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah Lin Jones, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq. Thierman Buck, LLP 7287 Lakeside Dr. Reno, NV 89511-76520 Telephone 775-284-1500 Facsimile: 775-703-5027 Omni Limousine, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Hall -- ahall@hollandhart.com -- Rico Cordova -- rncordova@hollandhart.com -- at Holland & Hart LLP OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit for Drug Overpricing ---------------------------------------------------- GAIL DAVIS, for herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OptumRX, Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv- 02165 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2016), seeks restoration of profits; equitable relief; injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing their clawback scheme,]; accounting and disgorgement of profits; restitution; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and such other relief for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Davis is covered by a health plan provided through her husband's employer and currently administered by Cigna and Optum. Ms. Davis has received prescription drug coverage through this plan. She is obligated to make a copayment when filling a prescription. The amount Optum requires the pharmacy collect from the patient often exceeds the amount that Cigna and/or Optum pay the pharmacy for the patient's prescription drug. This results in the patient being overcharged for prescription drugs and results in the patient paying the entire copayment and the Defendants collecting hidden additional payments. There is no sharing of costs between the patient and the plan. Optum is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Optum is a pharmacy benefits manager and currently manages the coverage and policies provided by Cigna. Cigna is a Connecticut company with its principal place of business in Bloomfield, Connecticut and is authorized to do business in the State of California. Cigna provides insurance coverage and administrative services across the country, The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (310) 684-2504 Fax: (855) 274-1888 Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr. Edith M. Kallas WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Fl. New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com kallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Henry Quillen, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Tel: (603) 294-1591 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - Alex T. Gray, Esq. Nate Steel, Esq. Scott Poynter, Esq. STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501) 251-1587 Fax: (501) 244-2614 Email: alex@swghfirm.com nate@swghfirm.com scott@poynterlawgroup.com - and - Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. MAURIELLO LAW FIRM 1181 Puerta Del Sol, #120 San Clemente, CA 92673 Tel: (949) 542-3555 Fax: (949) 606-9690 Email: tomm@maurlaw.com OSHKOSH, WI: Released Prisoner May Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------- District Judge James D. Peterson of the Western District of Wisconsin, ruled on plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint in the case DAVID D. AUSTIN II, Plaintiff, v. JUDY P. SMITH, EDWARD WALL, and REXFORD SMITH, Defendants, No. 15-cv-525- jdp (W.D. Wis.) David D. Austin II, proceeding pro se, filed a suit against Oshkosh Correctional Institution (OCI) when he was still a prisoner at OCI. He has since been released from prison and is currently represented by counsel. Austin is proceeding on claims that OCI prison officials violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Austin says that the plexiglass sheets covering the windows of all cells in the R-Unit block of OCI cause the cells to be extremely hot and potentially unsafe. He alleges that defendants are deliberately indifferent to the unreasonable health and safety risk posed by the permanently closed windows in his cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that sealing the windows in one unit of the prison constitutes arbitrarily unequal treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before obtaining counsel, Austin filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's screening order, a motion for class status, and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Upon reconsideration, Judge Peterson granted Austin's leave to proceed on the due process claim. Transfer from a cell with a window that opens to a dangerously hot cell with a plexiglass covering on the window may be a deprivation of liberty requiring due process. On the motion for class status Judge Peterson observed that a pro se litigant cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Austin has since retained counsel and indicated that he intends to refile a motion for class status. Judge Peterson will dismiss the current pending motion without prejudice. Should Austin, through counsel, file a motion for class status, Judge Peterson will give that motion proper consideration. Austin has filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to (1) include a demand for jury trial; (2) include a request for punitive damages, (3) sue defendant Edward Wall, former secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, in his personal capacity only, and (4) name Jon Litscher, current secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, as a defendant in his official capacity. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and the court has set a scheduling conference to discuss possible amendments to the scheduling order, so there is no reason to think that defendants would be prejudiced by the changes. Judge Peterson will grant Austin's request and accept the amended complaint as the operative pleading in the case. A copy of Judge Peterson's order dated November 22, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/eRmZVA from Leagle.com. David D. Austin, II, Plaintiff, represented by: Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq. Blaise & Nitschke, P.C. 123 N. wacker Dr., Ste 250 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-488-6602 Facsimile: 312-803-1940 Rexford Smith and Judy P. Smith, Defendant, represented by Katherine D. Spitz -- at Wisconsin Department of Justice Edward Wall, Defendant, represented by Katherine D. Spitz -- atWisconsin Department of Justice; Samuel C. Hall -- shall@crivellocarlson.com -- Zachary James Flood -- at Crivello Carlson, S.C. PATRICK M. CONNELLY: "Allah-Mensah" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland, denied defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case FRANK ALLAH-MENSAH, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK M. CONNELLY, P.C., Defendant, Civil Action No. PX-16-1053 (D. Md.) On April 8, 2016, Frank Allah-Mensah filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C. had violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Allah-Mensah contends that the law office sent him an initial collection letter on July 14, 2015 and that the letter failed to advise that only the debt collector may assume the debt is valid in the absence of a dispute from a consumer. Allah-Mensah claims in count I that the language of the collection letter is in direct contravention of the FDCPA, which requires a debt collector to send the consumer a written notice containing a statement that "unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector". In count II, Allah-Mensah claims that because the letter failed to explain that only the debt collector may assume the debt valid, such omission was a false representation and deceptive means to attempt to collect the debt by asserting that the debt would be assumed valid generally, not just by the debt collector in violation of Section 1692g. Allah-Mensah, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks statutory damages as allowed by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(A) of the FDCPA. The law office filed a motion to dismiss and contends that the plaintiff and the other putative class members lack standing to pursue their claims because they have failed to allege a cognizable injury-in-fact, as reiterated in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Judge Xinis is persuaded that plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently a concrete injury resulting from alleged violations of the FDCPA. The invasion of a statutorily conferred right may, in and of itself, be a sufficient injury to undergird a plaintiff's standing even in the absence of other harm. Judge Xinis denied defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Xinis's memorandum opinion dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/hQHZCm from Leagle.com. Frank Allah-Mensah, Plaintiff, represented by: Edward Matthew Poretz, Esq. 6B Nashua Court Baltimore, MD 21221 Telephone: 855-499-9586 Facsimile: 443-863-4908 - and - Matthew T Sheffield, Esq. Law Offices of Michael Lupolover PC 12 Sylan Ave Suite 300 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 0763 Telephone: 201-461-0059 Facsimile: 201-608-7116 Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C., Defendant, represented by: Ronald S Canter, Esq. The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter LLC 200A Monroe St #104 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 301-424-7490 PILOT CORP: 11th Cir. Confirms Original Jurisdiction Under CAFA --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Durkin, Esq., and Michael Grill, Esq., of Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) confers original federal jurisdiction over state law claims brought under CAFA even when related class action claims are dismissed. CAFA jurisdiction, like conventional diversity jurisdiction, is not destroyed by post-filing events. Thus, CAFA jurisdiction "is not easily defeated." Because CAFA vests federal district courts with original jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, district courts need not analyze supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances. In Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether a district court retains original jurisdiction over state law claims following the dismissal of class action claims brought under the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). CAFA conveys original subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts when the aggregated claims of the class members exceed $5 million, the proposed class has at least 100 members and at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. The Wright case was unique in that prior appellate decisions addressed only suits that were filed in state court and then removed to federal court pursuant to CAFA. In Wright, plaintiff Wright Transportation Inc. initially filed all of its claims -- state and federal -- in federal court, alleging that jurisdiction existed under CAFA. After its class claims were dismissed, Wright sought to dismiss and refile its state law claims in Alabama state court. Defendants argued that, under CAFA, the federal district court could not divest itself of original jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed. Background Wright was a customer of Pilot Corporation, the nation's largest operator of over-the-road diesel fuel truck stops. Wright filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in July 2013, alleging that certain Pilot employees withheld rebates and discounts owed to Wright and other customers. A court-approved settlement of a competing class suit in the Eastern District of Arkansas subsequently deprived Wright of standing to pursue its class claims. The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Wright's remaining claims. The Alabama district court granted the motion in part, allowing Wright to maintain only its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims pursuant to Alabama law. Following a series of motions and procedural events, Wright moved to dismiss its own complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent its class claims, Wright argued that the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The defendants opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court was vested with original jurisdiction over Wright's claims, pursuant to CAFA. With only the state law claims left to resolve, the district court analyzed the issue as one of supplemental jurisdiction, which district courts may exercise at their discretion. The court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. Wright then filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court, raising nearly identical claims to those in its federal action. Several defendants appealed the district court's order dismissing the federal lawsuit and also filed a motion to abate Wright's state court suit. The Appeal On appeal, defendants argued that when original jurisdiction is conferred under CAFA, "it sticks for the entire life of the case, such that it could not be destroyed by later events," including a rival class settlement or failure to obtain class certification. Wright argued that the district court's dismissal of the class claims destroyed CAFA jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit first reviewed its own precedent, as well as precedent from the Seventh, Fifth and Second Circuits, for the proposition that, at least in cases removed to federal court, post-removal events "do not oust CAFA jurisdiction." But the court explained that the difference between CAFA cases originally filed in federal court versus those removed from state courts can be material. Removal cases "present concerns about forum manipulation that counsel against allowing a plaintiff's post- removal amendments to affect jurisdiction." But when a plaintiff first files in federal court, as Wright did, forum manipulation is a lesser concern. District courts may therefore consider post- filing amendments to federal pleadings when such amendments drop all class claims when considering jurisdiction. However, the court held that this difference did not destroy original jurisdiction. The court noted that Wright's class claims were not eliminated through amendment, but rather were dismissed by the district court. Because all of Wright's claims -- state and federal -- were brought pursuant to CAFA at the time they were filed, the district court had original jurisdiction over each claim. Thus, "CAFA continue[d] to confer original federal jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in this suit." The Eleventh Circuit further clarified that the district court's analysis of the issue as one of supplemental jurisdiction was incorrect. District courts need only invoke supplemental jurisdiction when the case involves individual state law claims that were never subject to CAFA jurisdiction. Considerations for Litigants The Eleventh Circuit's decision clarifies that original jurisdiction will follow both state and federal claims that are initially filed in federal court pursuant to CAFA, even when all of the plaintiff's class claims are dismissed after filing, subject to three exceptions below. This holding is consistent with precedent that focused on removal cases, which held that original federal jurisdiction follows claims that are removed from state to federal courts pursuant to CAFA. In the removal context, original federal jurisdiction will survive despite post-removal actions, including dismissal, lack of certification or pleading amendments that may otherwise eliminate the class claims. However, in the context of cases originally filed in federal court, the Wright court cautioned that CAFA will not convey original federal jurisdiction when 1) a plaintiff that originally files in federal court subsequently amends its complaint to eliminate all of its class claims, 2) a plaintiff brings state claims separate from and never subject to CAFA and 3) claims purportedly filed under CAFA are dismissed because they are frivolous or lack the expectation that a class may eventually be certified. In the third scenario, the Eleventh Circuit noted that such claims would not be subject to jurisdiction under CAFA in the first place. None of these exceptions were at issue in Wright. PREMIERE NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record, reports that an Illinois consumer claims that an Emeryville company's joint health supplements are falsely advertised. Sandra Dent filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on Nov. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Premiere Nutrition Corp., formerly known as Joint Juice Inc., alleging that the supplement manufacturer obtained profit through unfair or deceptive trade or commerce. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that she was enticed to purchase defendant's Joint Juice product, which promises to help support and nourish cartilage, lubricate joints and improve joint comfort without any limitation on which joints for adults of all ages. The suit states that despite defendant's representations, meta-analysis studies conclude that glucosamine, alone or with chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the represented joint health benefits. The plaintiffs hold Premiere Nutrition Corp. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to provide its promised health benefits and deceived consumers into paying for deceptive products at premium prices. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in her favor; declare the case as a class action; designate class representative and class counsel; actual, punitive and statutory damages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees; litigation costs; interest and further relief as may be just. She is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E. Hurst and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP in San Diego, Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP in San Diego, Adam J. Levitt and Edmund S. Aronowitz of Grant & Eisenhofer PA in Chicago and Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC in Chicago. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:16-cv-06721 QUALITY SERVICE: Overtime Pay Demanded in "Casasus" Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Yoan Casasus, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Quality Service Towing, Inc. and Rodolfo Varela, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25107 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, other damages, and attorney's fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a tow truck and salvaging company owned by Rodolfo Varela, where Plaintiff worked as a tow truck driver. Plaintiff was routinely forced to work the shift of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. from Mondays to Saturday in exchange for a $400 weekly wage, which did not meet the required hourly minimum wage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Armenteros, Esq. PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, PL 283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377-0086 Facsimile: (305) 377-0782 Email: miguel@pbyalaw.com RALEIGH HEART: Patient Exposure Cases Obtain Class Action Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Holdren, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that a Raleigh County circuit judge granted a motion certifying cases against the Raleigh Heart Clinic as a class action lawsuit. The suit was filed in March against the clinic for potential patient exposure to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Patients who had a cardiac stress test performed at Raleigh Heart Clinic between March 1, 2012, and March 27, 2015, received a letter in March from the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, indicating they should be tested for the diseases. In addition to Raleigh Heart Clinic, the following individuals were named as defendants in the lawsuit: Thair Bargouthi, MD, primary physician and president of Raleigh Heart Clinic; Nahla Bargouthi, MD, secretary and vice president of Raleigh Heart Clinic; John Does 1-10; and an unnamed hospital. The lawsuit is seeking damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgments, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief. Attorney Stephen New said the defense has 30 days from the certification to file notice of appeal. If they file notice, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will set a schedule for the appeal proceedings. New estimates between 100 and 110 people tested positive for HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C and qualify to be part of the suit. RHODE ISLAND: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gemmell" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melba Depena Affigne. The case is captioned Helen Gemmell and Mea Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Melba Depena Affigne, in her official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Human Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00650-S-LDA (D.R.I., Dec. 8, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge William E. Smith. Rhode Island, a U.S. state in New England, is known for sandy shores and seaside Colonial towns. It is home to several large cities, including Newport, which is famed for sailing and Gilded Age mansions, such as The Breakers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynette J. Labinger, Esq. RONEY & LABINGER LLP 344 Wickenden Street Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 421 9794 Facsimile: (401) 421 0132 E-mail: Labinger@roney-labinger.com ROYAL BANK: Reaches Settlement With Three of Five Investor Groups ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Martin, writing for Telegraph, reports that Royal Bank of Scotland faces the prospect of a lengthy legal battle with shareholders despite offering to pay out GBP800m in an attempt to avoid going to court over claims it misled investors who took part in its GBP12bn rescue fundraising at the height of the financial crisis. The state-owned lender, which has not admitted any liability, said it had reached a "full and final settlement" with three of the five shareholder groups that have been pursuing claims totalling GBP4bn against the bank. The trio -- three separate groups of institutional investors -- account for 77pc of the claims by value and the shareholders will receive 41.2p for each pound that they invested in the cash call eight years ago. However, two groups made up of tens of thousands of retail investors have not agreed to the settlement, meaning RBS could still go to court next March in an expensive legal battle that could last up to seven years. Before the settlement offer, RBS had spent around GBP100m dealing with the claims. A spokesman for the RBoS Shareholder Action Group, which represents 27,000 retail investors in a case led by Signature Litigation, said: "We had no option but to reject this inadequate offer and remain committed to seeking justice for our members through the courts." Leon Kaye, the founder of the eponymous class action law firm that acts for the RBS Rights Issue Action Group, which represents about 4,000 retail investors and is the other claimant that has not settled, said: "It's not a very generous offer, to put it politely. "As matters stand, we're considering our position." The bank said the GBP800m it has set aside, which is provided for by existing provisions it has made, was to cover all five claimant groups if the outstanding two agreed to the offer. A host of City investors, including BlackRock, Lloyds Banking Group's Scottish Widows business and Aviva, have settled with the lender as part of the deal. The institutional shareholders are represented by three law firms: Stewarts Law, Mishcon de Reya and Quinn Emanuel. It marks the latest attempt by Ross McEwan, RBS's chief executive, to resolve one of the many long-standing problems from its past that continue to overhang the bank, some of which are stopping the Government from selling down its 73pc stake. The capital raising at the heart of the investor claims took place just months before RBS' GBP45bn Government bailout in 2008, and some shareholders allege they were misled about the bank's financial health ahead of the cash call. If the the RBoS Shareholder Action Group does pursue RBS in the courts, it would lead to further scrutiny of the lender's actions in the run-up to, and during, the financial crisis. While the four other investor groups had made claims against the bank, the action group is also pursuing individual former RBS directors, including ex-chief executive Fred Goodwin and former chairman Tom McKillop. "We have been very clear that we wanted to deal with as many of our legacy litigation issues as possible during 2015 and 2016," said Mr McEwan. "We are pleased to have reached this agreement and hope that it will be accepted by the remaining claimant groups so that this long course of complex and costly litigation can now be concluded." Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, warned that RBS might take a bigger hit than the GBP800m it has so far earmarked if it ends up in court. "It remains possible that a further amount may need to be set aside should agreement not be reached with the remaining two shareholder groups and were RBS to lose the subsequent court case," he said. As well as the legal claims over the GBP800m capital raising, RBS also faces a potential fine from the US Department of Justice over allegations it mis-sold mortgage-backed securities before the financial crisis. Some estimates put the penalty the bank might receive at more than $12bn. RBS must also offload its Williams & Glyn (W&G) branch network, a divestment that has been forced on it by the European Commission as a condition of the bank's Government rescue. The Edinburgh- based lender has already warned it expects to miss a Brussels- imposed deadline of the end of next year to sell W&G, a deal that has proved problematic to execute. Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has said the Government will not sell any more RBS shares until both issues are resolved. To add to the pressure on Mr McEwan, RBS failed the Bank of England's annual stress test and so must shore up its capital position to the tune of GBP2bn. The prospect of a large US fine was one of the reasons RBS failed the test. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Trash Bill Overcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Scott Davidson, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Republic Services on Dec. 2 claims the waste-disposal company is illegally overcharging Clark County property owners by placing multiple $60 liens on homes for overdue trash bills. The lawsuit states that the county ordinance allows Republic Services to file only a single, $60 perpetual lien against each home. "We want to protect the people of Clark County against an abusive practice by a company that is a virtual monopoly," said Las Vegas-based attorneys James Adams, who filed the lawsuit in Clark County District Court with fellow attorney Puoy Premsrirut. "We believe this happens a lot to Mr. Joe Homeowner." Tim Oudman, market vice president of Republic Service, rebutted the allegations. "We believe our billing practices are consistent with the franchise agreement and our commitment to a community we are fortunate to serve," he wrote in a statement. Ms. Premsrirut said she believes that tens of thousands of property owners could have been overcharged during the past four years. Republic Services has held an exclusive franchise agreement with Las Vegas since 1985; with Clark County since 1993, under prior ownership; with North Las Vegas since 1978; and with Henderson since 1973, under prior ownership. Republic Services is the only waste-disposal company allowed to collect municipal solid waste. Mr. Adams said he's seeking to stop Republic Services from placing more than one lien on a property and also getting refunds for any property owners who were overcharged by the company. The lawsuit alleges Republic Services violated Nevada's Consumer Fraud Act and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Act. The lead plaintiffs are local real estate professional Maxwell Steinberg, Valtus Real Estate LLC and Rutt Premsrirut, who founded Valtus and is Puoy Premsrirut's brother. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Sekula Files Appeal in 11th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------- JOHN C. SEKULA and JACQUELINE SEKULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellants, v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC.; AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE, a.k.a. American Western Home Insurance Company; and SERVICE, the Defendant - Appellees, Case No. 16-17451 (11th Cir, Dec. 8, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No. 6:15-cv-02104-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2015). The Appellants are represented by: Cristina Maria Pierson, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 700 Se 3rd Ave Ste 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Business: 954 522 6601 Personal: 954 522 6601 Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. is represented by: Christopher Boeck, Esq. Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq. Robert Thompson Mowrey, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 2200 Ross Ave Ste 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-2748 Business: 214 740 8000 American Western Home Insurance is represented by: Rodger Eckelberry, Esq. Mark A. Johnson, Esq. Robert J. Tucker, Esq. Michael Sebastain Vitale, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 65 E STATE ST STE 2100 Columbus, OH 43215-4260 The SERVICE is represented by: Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, PA 4473 NE 11TH AVE FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33334 Business: 954-616-8995 - and - John J. Uustal, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 700 Se 3rd Ave Ste 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Business: 954 522 6601 Personal: 954 522 6601 SAINT-GOBAIN: Ground Water Contamination Alleged in "Dowling" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Dowling, James Bollengier, Brenda Morse, Brian Mendez, Amy Mendez, Individually and As Natural Parent and Personal Representative For , M.M., Beverly Volner, James Volner, Dawna Worcester, Richard Slide, Erin Slide, Individually and As Natural Parent and Personal Representative For , C.S. and M.S., Jonathan Kiley, Jennifer Kiley, individually and as natural parent and personal representative for , A.K., K.K., E.K.1 and E.K.2, April Provencher, Phyllis Provencher, Richard Provencher, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., individually and as successor in interest to Chemfab, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00528 (D.N.H., December 5, 2016), seeks implementation of a testing and monitoring protocol to test drinking water for the properties belonging to the members of the Class; an order establishing a medical monitoring protocol; general, compensatory, exemplary, consequential, nominal, and punitive damages; attorney fees and costs; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and such other relief resulting from public nuisance and negligence. Saint-Gobain's facilities have been linked to the contamination of surface and groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and, and other manufactured compounds which have been detected at levels exceeding the current EPA Health Advisory Limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in the groundwater that provides water to the communities through both municipal water systems and private wells. Defendant operates a plastics plant on Daniel Webster Highway in Merrimack. Plaintiffs are affected residents and have all complained of various medical ailments allegedly resulting from exposure to these contaminants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Shkolnik, Esq. Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Louise Caro, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor New York, NY, 10017 Tel: (212) 397-1000 Email: hunter@napolilaw.com pnapoli@napolilaw.com lcaro@napolilaw.com - and - Kirk Simoneau, Esq. Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq. NIXON VOGELMAN BARRY SLAWSKY SIMONEAU P.A. 77 Central Street Manchester, NH 03101 Tel: (603) 669-7070 Email: ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com lvogelman@davenixonlaw.com SALEM INTERNATIONAL: W.Va. High Court Sends Suit to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Brent D. Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia, reversed an order by the Circuit Court of Harrison County denying a motion to stay proceedings pending mandatory alternative dispute resolution, and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings the case captioned as, SALEM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, AND JOHN LUOTTO, PRESIDENT, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. TAYLOR BATES, MICHELLE SYLVA, AMY NORTHROP, CLARISSA HANNAH, AND GENA DELLI- GATTI ON BEHALF OF THEMESELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, No. 15-0948 (W. Va.) Respondents Taylor Bates, Michelle Sylva, Amy Northrop, Clarissa Hannah, and Gena Delli-Gatti on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated are former students in Salem International University LLC's nursing program who each signed enrollment agreements with Salem, attended classes, and paid tuition to Salem. Upon their enrollment, they signed enrollment agreements that contained an arbitration clause. In August 2013, the respondents filed a putative class action complaint against Salem and alleged that they were nursing students who were enrolled at Salem in October 2012 and thereafter and were denied the opportunity to complete their coursework in nursing at Salem as a result of the nursing program's loss of accreditation. The respondents stated claims for violation of the State Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code Sections 46A-6-101-110, negligence, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion of personal property. In 2014, Salem filed a motion to stay proceedings pending mandatory alternative dispute resolution in which it asserted that the respondents agreed to arbitrate their claims against Salem through the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to the enrollment agreement they signed. Respondents asserted that the arbitration agreement at issue is unenforceable because Salem had not complied with any of the requirements of the AAA provision, the arbitration agreement at issue exempts class actions from arbitration, and the arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. By order entered August 27, 2015, the Circuit Court of Harrison County denied Salem's motion to stay proceedings pending mandatory alternative dispute resolution. Salem appealed. Salem posits that the circuit court ruled that the arbitration agreement is valid by referring to it as "this otherwise valid arbitration agreement." Salem admits that the circuit court did not undertake an in depth analysis or a meaningful discussion of the validity of the agreement, but that the court included in its order the relevant legal principles applicable to determining the validity of an arbitration agreement. Further, Salem avers that the respondents cannot now challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement because the respondents failed to cross- assign as error before the Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia the circuit court's determination that the arbitration agreement was valid except for its ambiguity regarding the respondents' right to bring class action litigation. Regarding the waiver issue, Salem argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the class action waiver language in the arbitration agreement is ambiguous. Justice Benjamin held that any challenges to the arbitration agreement's validity are not properly before the court. Citing the case of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. v. Daugherty, No. 13- 0253, 2013 WL 6152606 (W. Va. November 22, 2013), the Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia declined to address a cross- assignment of error that was not presented with the required specificity. According to Justice Benjamin, no cross-assignment of error was presented challenging the circuit court's determination that the arbitration agreement at issue was otherwise valid. The high court will not address the respondents' arguments regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement; rather, the court will only address whether the arbitration agreement contains an enforceable class action litigation waiver. Justice Benjamin also observed that the arbitration agreement is not ambiguous and that the arbitration agreement acts as a class action litigation waiver barring the respondents from seeking judicial relief as a class. A copy of Justice Benjamin's order dated November 16, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/yo9Zpm from Leagle.com. Michael S. Garrison -- mgarrison@spilmanlaw.com -- Kelly J. Kimble -- kkimble@spilmanlaw.com -- Eric W. Iskra -- eiskra@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Attorneys for Petitioners Attorney for Respondents: Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq., The Webb Law Centre, PLLC 716 Lee St E Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: 304-344-9322 SANTA FE NATURAL: False Advertising Suite Filed by "Hebert" ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacques-Rene Hebert, Sara Benson, Carol Murphy, Francisco Chavez, Joshua Horne, Albert Lopez, and Abigail Emmons, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01390, (M.D. N.C., December 7, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages with prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution of Defendants' ill-gotten gains, reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including their attorneys' fees, and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty, various state consumer protection acts and fair business dealings policies. Plaintiffs allege that by uniformly using the terms "Natural" and "Additive-Free" on each and every label of cigarettes manufactured and sold by the Defendants, they intentionally convey to consumers that their Natural American Spirit cigarettes are safer and healthier to smoke than other competing cigarettes despite the fact that smoking any cigarette, in general, is dangerous and hazardous to health and that there is no safe cigarette commercially available within the United States. Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Tel: (910) 772-9960 Fax: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 Email: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Scott W. Weinstein, Esq. Marisa K. Glassman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com sweinstein@forthepeople.com mglassman@forthepeople.com - and - Melissa Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (800) 493-2827 Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - James W. Gustafson, Esq. SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 517 N. Calhoun St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 224-7600 Facsimile: (561) 383-9454 Email: jwg@searcylaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR 316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-7141 Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com SCOTT'S BREWERY: Judge Spurns Application Approach, Tosses Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James D. Peterson of the District of Wisconsin, granted defendants' motions to dismiss, in the case JOE ROBBINS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SVEHLA, SCOTT'S BREWERY COLLECTIBLES, LLC, NICHOLAS MARTIN, SPORTS-4-LESS, PHARMACY STATION, INC., and GERALD MILLER, Defendants, No. 16-cv-532-jdp (W.D. Wis.) Joe Robbins, a sports photographer, brought a copyright infringement claims against defendants, alleging that they have copied and are currently copying, displaying, publishing, distributing, and otherwise infringing his copyright in one of his photographs of Aaron Rodgers, a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. Defendants are sports memorabilia dealers. Robbins alleges that defendants' alleged infringements are part of a larger pattern and practice of the defendants selling what amounts to counterfeit products that feature unlicensed and infringing reproductions of photographs. Robbins initially alleged that he had registered his copyright in the photograph with the United States Copyright Office, but later on conceded that he does not have a registration number or a certificate of registration. Robbins does not dispute that the United States Copyright Office has not yet issued a certificate of registration for the photograph. Defendants Nicholas Martin d/b/a Sports-4-Less and Gerald Miller and Scott Svehla d/b/a Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC, move to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). All moving defendants offer the same basis for dismissal and that is Robbins did not possess a valid copyright registration when he commenced the action. Robbins responds that the application approach controls and that the fact that he applied for registration is sufficient. Judge Peterson declines to adopt the application approach and, as a result, grants defendants' motions. Judge Peterson says there are sound policy arguments for the application approach, but they do not count for much in the face of statutory text with a clear meaning. And those policy arguments would not have much traction in the case. Judge Peterson also notes that Robbins proposes to proceed with a class action, so it is hard to see why Robbins and the putative class counsel would not simply expedite the application for registration. The cost -- $800 -- seems very modest for a case brought on behalf of numerous defendants. A copy of Judge Peterson's order dated November 22, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/Tz75U9 from Leagle.com. Joe Robbins, Plaintiff, represented by: Kevin Patrick McCulloch, Esq. Nathaniel Kleinman, Esq. Nelson & McCulloch LLP 155 E 56th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-355-6050 Scott Svehla and Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC, Defendants, represented by Gregory T. Everts -- gregory.everts@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady Nicholas Martin, Sports-4-Less, and Gerald Miller, Defendants, represented by John Paul Fredrickson -- jpf@boylefred.com -- at Boyle Fredrickson, S.C. Pharmacy Station, Inc., Defendant, represented by James C. Ratzel -- at Ratzel & Associates, LLC West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Rick J. Mundt -- at Winner, Wixson & Pernitz; Daniel John Cunningham -- dcunningham@tresslerllp.com -- at Tressler LLP Owners Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Ryan Ray Graff -- at Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & Mccracken Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Gregory T. Everts -- gregory.everts@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Rick J. Mundt -- at Winner, Wixson & Pernitz; Daniel John Cunningham -- dcunningham@tresslerllp.com -- at Tressler LLP SI WIRELESS: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SI Wireless, LLC. The case is captioned Andrea Campbell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SI Wireless, LLC, and Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01320-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. SI Wireless was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services such as cellular telephone services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Glapion, Esq. GLAPION LAW FIRM 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455 9737 Facsimile: (732) 709 5150 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com STAR INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in "Sheehan" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Circuit Judge John M. Rogers of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court, in the case CRAIG SHEEHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-1692 (6th Cir.) Craig Sheehan accidentally fell and injured his head at work, allegedly resulting in difficulties with his memory, he sought compensation under Michigan's Workers' Disability Compensation Act from his employer, CJB Trucking, Inc. (CJB). Star Insurance Company was then the insurer for CJB's workers' compensation claims, and as a part of its standard procedure for handling a claim like Sheehan's, it sent him a letter. Star sent Sheehan a letter requesting that he undergo an independent examination by a psychologist, which the insurer had arranged for that purpose. The notice indicated that failure to report for said examination may result in the loss of the compensation benefits. Sheehan reported for the exam, which lasted 7 to 8 hours. A year and a half later Sheehan brought a putative class action suit in diversity against Star alleging, among other things, that by sending the letter requesting an independent medical exam Star had falsely imprisoned him under Michigan law. Because the letter allegedly threatened him with the loss of his workers' compensation benefits if he refused to submit to the neuropsychological exam with Dr. Greiffenstein, an examination that Sheehan claims inflicted on him, mental anguish, outrage at loss of liberty, and emotional distress, and because Dr. Greiffenstein was allegedly also not a physician or surgeon authorized to practice medicine in Michigan, Sheehan claimed that Star had not only restrained him against his will, but had done so unlawfully under Michigan's workers' compensation law. He sought compensation in excess of $75,000, along with interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The district court dismissed Sheehan's complaint. Sheehan appeals the dismissal of his false imprisonment claim and alleges that the letter Star sent to him was not a request but a threat, and that under Michigan's law of false imprisonment. Judge Rogers affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case and held that Sheehan's claim of false imprisonment fails because Star did not restrain him in any sense recognized by Michigan law. Michigan law requires for false imprisonment that the defendant have somehow constrained the plaintiff's liberty or freedom of movement, whether manually or in some other way. Contrary to Sheehan's arguments, defendant's act does not amount to the tort of false imprisonment under Michigan common law. Sheehan's actions were sufficiently voluntary, that there was no imprisonment, as the district court reasoned. The district court properly dismissed Sheehan's claim. A copy of Judge Rogers's opinion dated November 22, 2016, is available at http://bit.ly/2h9M5s7from Leagle.com. SUPERIOR TANK: Miranda et al. Allege Violations of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MIRANDA, HIPOLITO BORROMEO, HERNAN ESPINOZA, JOSE GUTIERREZ, KEVIN MATAMOROS, WALTER MENJIVAR, ELIAS MIRANDA, SAMUEL MIRANDA, RODOLFO RICO, EDGAR RODRIGUEZ, JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, ROGELIO SALAS, CESAR VELASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUPERIOR TANK CO., INC. a/k/a SUPERIOR BOLTED TANK CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00083 (S.D. Tex., December 8, 2016), alleges that Defendants is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing its employees to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for their hours worked that Superior is legally obligated to pay. Superior Tank Co., Inc., a/k/a Superior Bolted Tank Co., Inc., is a company that designs, fabricates, and builds bolted and welded steel storage tanks throughout the United States including Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Justin C. Jenson, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 425-7100 Fax: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: "Kirk" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Tracy E. Kirk, Plaintiff vs. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00222-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., December 6, 2016), is a class and collective action lawsuit against Tenneco to address alleged class-wide wage and hour violations committed by Tenneco against its hourly-paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC. operates an automobile part manufacturing facility in Jeffersonville, Clark County, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: (812) 232-9691 Fax: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Browder" Class Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation. The case is captioned Heidi Browder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-03387-G (N.D. Tex., December 7, 2016). Headquartered in Torrance, California, the Defendants operate the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory Steven Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main St, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: For-Profit Colleges Optimistic Despite Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Schuman, writing for The Atlantic, reports that Strayer Education, Inc., the company that owns the for-profit Strayer University, hadn't experienced a sudden, significant increase in its stock price in more than a year. Then, as November 9 came to a close and it was clear that Donald J. Trump had won the election, the company's stock jumped from $58 to $66 per share. It wasn't the only for-profit college to see a boon after the presidential votes were tallied -- even those that have faced federal probes, like DeVry and the University of Phoenix, saw their stock values rise. This was quite a change from the reasons for-profits have usually appeared in the news -- often simply a chronicle of which ones had just closed their campuses or filed for bankruptcy -- amid the Obama administration's second-term crackdown on select for-profit institutions accused of engaging in unscrupulous recruiting practices and making unfulfilled career promises. Perhaps investors in the for-profits were optimistic about President-elect Trump's promises to undo as many government regulations as possible. Or perhaps, given that Trump had once operated a for-profit real-estate seminar series, branded as a "university" bearing his name, they saw in him someone who supports for-profit colleges, too. That particular institution, of course, was recently embroiled in a class-action fraud lawsuit, which Trump settled 10 days after the election to the tune of $25 million (though he said on Twitter that he would have prevailed). On its face, the Trump University settlement would appear to signal caution to those with a stake in for-profits, namely colleges whose business practices have already come under scrutiny. But nearly everything about this particular fraud case was an outlier, from the brazenness of Trump University's "playbook," to its high-dollar class-action settlement, to the fact that it made it to court (and, thus, also the public record) in the first place. A central tenet of one of the complaints in the class-action lawsuit, Cohen v. Trump, was that operating Trump's seminars as "Trump University" (which went on until 2010), was a blatantly fraudulent act. That is, per the Cohen complaint, not only did the events not offer direct access to Trump's real-estate "secrets," but the operation conferred neither degree nor certification, making it unlike any actual university. Although Trump himself claimed in a promotional video that the seminars' faculty consisted of hand-selected "professors and adjunct professors" whose quality rivaled those in the Ivy League, the events instead allegedly delivered independent sales contractors, paid in commission. Additionally, the Cohen complaint alleges participants filled out detailed financial statements, ostensibly for the purpose of setting investment goals, but actually "to assess the liquid assets that each student has to spend on the next Trump University program." While the first seminar was offered free of cost, according to the complaint, it upsold to a "Fulfillment Seminar" costing $1,495, which was followed by a $34,995 "Gold Elite" program. (Trump's answer to the Cohen complaint either denied all allegations of wrongdoing, or claimed Trump was "without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth" of those allegations.) Rather than overpromise a lucrative new career in a hot field, as some for-profit universities have been criticized of doing, Trump University was, according to the complaints, a simple get-rich- quick racket with the word "university" attached -- a word that eventually disappeared in 2010, after the New York State Education Department demanded Trump remove it, as using it without any attendant properties of an institution of higher learning was illegal. The primary reason, then, that the American for-profit market doesn't seem rattled by the Trump settlement is that Trump U was, simply put, accused of running a full-fledged scam that had little to do with universities at all, for-profit or otherwise. It's worth noting that some for-profit schools do produce good outcomes for students, with many of the institutions offering more flexible scheduling than nonprofit and public colleges do for nontraditional students. And while the unscrupulous minority of the for-profits, such as the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, were also accused of running scams, those alleged scams were of a markedly different nature. The other reason the Trump settlement seems to be having little effect on investor confidence in the for-profits accused of wrongdoing has to do with a popular legal tactic that will likely keep many disgruntled for-profit students out of the courtroom to start with: mandatory arbitration agreements, in which those who sign them effectively sign away their rights to sue. According to Katherine Chiarello, a commercial litigator based in Austin, Texas, the primary reason the Trump case made it to court in the first place was that Trump's program "apparently did not have a mandatory arbitration provision," which was "the only reason [the case] was able to get into court and into a public forum, where there could be public scrutiny of the alleged bad acts." (Texas was the site of another Trump University probe, which the state dropped amid controversy.) An extensive April 2016 report by the Century Foundation found that 98 percent of students enrolled at for-profit universities receiving federal aid must sign mandatory-arbitration provisions in their enrollment materials, compared to just 7 percent of students at traditional nonprofit or public colleges. Ms. Chiarello said that for for-profit students who feel they've been defrauded and have signed away their ability to go to court, the arbitrator "may be financially inclined to side with the for- profit university" because of the university's potential as a repeat customer. Further, though agreements vary between institutions, Ms. Chiarello explained that they usually "purport to limit the kind of damages you can recover," either by amount or by preventing class actions -- and thus, often suits altogether. "It can be very difficult to find a lawyer that can take on an individual's case," as opposed to a class action such as Cohen v. Trump, Ms. Chiarello said, "because the risk-reward" of a single client, meaning the potential payoff is insufficient. Steve Gunderson, the president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), an advocacy organization for the for-profit education industry, challenged Ms. Chiarello's claims, arguing that mandatory-arbitration clauses are instead in place to protect students at the for-profits. For it's not just that litigators will be loath to take on individual clients -- they also have little interest in small class actions either. "In small and medium-sized schools," he said, "class-action suits are not going to happen, because no lawyer will take them on" given the comparatively small number of claimants. "If you want to protect the student, arbitration may be the best vehicle." The Obama administration, however, was concerned about the effects of mandatory arbitration on students who'd been defrauded by for- profit colleges. In fact, on the cusp of the election, the U.S. Department of Education had actually introduced a new set of regulations, designed to protect both students and taxpayers from "predatory institutions." A key provision of the new regulatory effort, the department explained in an October 28 press release, was "permanently banning any pre-dispute arbitration agreements" for all students who took out federal loans to pay tuition. This would account for almost all for-profit students: Some 86 percent of the tuition funds in this industry stem from federal-aid programs. (Under the new regulations, the student and school could still agree to voluntary arbitration, a provision Gunderson says was added after "they heard us" about arbitration's advantages.) These new provisions -- which Gunderson denounced before they were finalized -- will take effect in July of 2017, when Trump will have been president for six months. Given the president-elect's stance on government regulations (and, presumably, being the subject of a class-action lawsuit), there is no indication that the mandatory-arbitration ban will see the light of day. (The press office of the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.) Today, the stock price of Strayer -- a group consistently lauded as one of the industry's better actors -- is hovering around $75 a share. That's the highest it's been since November of 2014, just after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Corinthian Colleges for predatory lending, coinciding with a nationwide decline in for-profit enrollment. With Trump headed to the White House, $25 million settlement or no, investors in America's remaining for-profit universities apparently believe they're headed for a resurgence. As they should be, says Ms. Chiarello. As long as for-profits' students have to sign those arbitration agreements, she said, the institutions can look forward to looser regulations and few lawsuits. "I think," she says, "that they are probably feeling pretty good right about now." TURN AROUND: "Kinslow" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Wages, OT Work ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Kinslow, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TURN AROUND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 642609 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, December 2, 2016), alleges that Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class Members when they work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week. TURN AROUND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. -- http://www.turnaroundcommunications.net/-- provides diverse services to the telecommunications industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5550 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone: (562) 256-1047 Fax: (562) 256-1006 TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Jonah Chung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tyson Foods Inc., Donnie Smith, and Dennis Leatherby, Case No. 1:16-cv-08108, was transferred from District of New York Southern to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16- cv-05354-PKH to the proceeding. The Defendants operate a food manufacturing company headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Joseph Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 The Defendant is represented by: David F. Graham, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com - and - Dorothy Jane Spenner, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5407 E-mail: dspenner@sidley.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Mastra" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Mastra, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.; UnitedHealthcare, Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-04119 (D. Minn., December 8, 2016), alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case alleges that Defendants, acting themselves and through their agents, required network pharmacies to charge insured patients unauthorized and excessive amounts for prescription drugs. Defendants "clawed back" these excessive payments by forcing the pharmacies to pay the unauthorized and excessive charges to Defendants after collecting them from the insureds. Defendant UnitedHealth Group Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Defendants UnitedHealthcare, Inc. and United Healthcare Services, Inc., is a fully integrated health insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com UNITED STATES: DOL Requests Expedited Ruling on Injunction Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin R. Barnes, Esq., and Eric R. Magnus, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that on December 2, one day after filing its appeal of the preliminary injunction blocking its new salary basis regulations, the DOL filed a request for expedited briefing and oral argument in the appeal. The DOL has requested that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set an expedited schedule whereby briefing would be complete on February 7, 2017 and oral argument would occur on the first available date thereafter. According to the DOL, the injunction was issued in error because the Fair Labor Standards Act gives the DOL "broad latitude" to issue regulations defining and delimiting the white collar exemptions, including the salary basis test. The DOL also notes in its request that the district court below set an expedited schedule for considering the motion for preliminary injunction. The States who initially filed the lawsuit challenging the DOL salary basis regulations have indicated that they oppose the DOL's request for expedited briefing and oral argument. The Fifth Circuit may not grant the DOL's request for an expedited schedule, but even if it does the appeal would not be resolved by the January 20, 2017 inauguration of President-elect Trump even under the DOL's proposed schedule. Under the Trump Administration, the DOL could withdraw the appeal or issue new proposed rules. Congress could also pass new legislation nullifying the DOL regulation. US CABLE CORP: "Bandsuh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Zach Bandsuh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. US Cable Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01828, (N.D. Ohio., December 8, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. US Cable is a private cable contracting company that provides design and construct cable, telephony, and call center services. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between October 2014 and November 2016 as a cable installer for customers throughout Northeast Ohio. Plaintiff and other cable installers were classified by Defendant as independent contractors and were paid on a points-based system based on their productivity and denied them overtime for hours worked over 40 per week. Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Steiner, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com david@lazzarolawfirm.com VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Magallon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02971- JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 7, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Vital Recovery Services, LLC owns and operates a third-party collection agency in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Asil A. Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive Suite 500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Telephone: (858) 348-4938 Facsimile: (858) 348-4939 E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Hospital Employees' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith of the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, dismissed an appeal in the case STEVEN HALLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM INC. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INC; ALLE KISKI MEDICAL CENTER; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL SUBURBAN CAMPUS; WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL; WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL FORBES REGIONAL CAMPUS; ALLEGHENY MEDICAL PRACTICE NETWORK; ALLEGHENY SPECIALTY PRACTICE NETWORK; WEST PENN PHYSICIAN PRACTICE NETWORK; ALLEGHENY SINGER RESEARCH INSTITUTE; HIGHMARK INC; ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK; JOHN W. PAUL; BART METZGER; CHRISTOPHER T. OLIVIA; JOHN LASKY; CANONSBURG GENERAL HOSPITAL SENORA TARPLEY; KATIEJO BIGENHO; WAYNE HABER, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other opt-in plaintiffs, Appellants, No. 15-3089 (3d Cir.) In 2009, two groups of plaintiffs filed separate but similar complaints against two large Western Pennsylvania hospitals and their affiliated health care facilities and centers: the Camesi v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, No. 3:09-cv-00085 (W.D Pa.), and the Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00379 (W.D. Pa.), but was later consolidated into No. 2:10-cv-00948 (W.D. Pa.). The complaints alleged that the hospital defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay their employees for work performed during scheduled meal breaks. The named plaintiffs purported to bring the claims as collective actions on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The district judges handling the cases conditionally certified the collective action. Both judges approved detailed notices to be sent to potential collective action members. Among other things, the notices advised that, by consenting to opt in to the suit, an employee would join in the lawsuit, await the outcome, and give up the right to sue separately. The notices further provided that once people have had the chance to opt in, the court will decide whether people who have opted in may participate in this collective action. Only people similarly situated to the plaintiffs may participate in this collective action. The parties conducted collective action related discovery for nearly two years, including expert discovery and fact discovery of the named plaintiffs and a sample of the collective action members. The district judges then entertained cross-motions by the plaintiffs to certify the collective actions and by the defendants to decertify the collective actions, but eventually both judges decertified the collective actions. Both judges concluded that the opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. When they decertified the two collective actions, the judges also dismissed the claims of all opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice to re-filing individual actions. In an express effort to seek immediate appellate review of the decertification orders, the named plaintiffs in both Camesi and Kuznyetsov moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district judges granted the motions and the named plaintiffs promptly filed notices of appeal. The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit court consolidated the two appeals. In Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013), and dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The third circuit determined that the named plaintiffs in Camesi and Kuznyetsov improperly had attempted to short-circuit the procedure for appealing an interlocutory order that is separate from, and unrelated to, the merits of their case. It further determined that, by voluntarily dismissing their claims with prejudice, the named plaintiffs mooted their claims in Camesi and Kuznyetsov. In doing so, the named plaintiffs extinguished any residual representational interest they may once have had in bringing claims on behalf of individuals who had filed consents to opt in to the collective action. Soon after the issuance of opinion in Camesi, the same law firm that represented the Camesi/Kuznyetsov plaintiffs filed two new FLSA collective action complaints on behalf of two new sets of named plaintiffs against the same hospital defendants, raising substantially the same FLSA claims concerning work during unpaid meal breaks. The new complaints proposed slightly different definitions of the collective actions than had been proposed in Camesi and Kuznyetsov. The follow-up to Camesi was Belle v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-01448 (W.D. Pa.), while the follow-up to Kuznyetsov was Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., No. 2:13-cv-01449 (W.D. Pa.). Both cases were assigned to Judge Bissoon, who had presided over Camesi. In Belle, before the named plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action, more than 900 individuals filed consents to opt in. The defendants moved to dismiss the collective action allegations on grounds of issue preclusion, arguing that the issue of certification of the collective action had been fully litigated in Camesi and should not be relitigated in Belle. Judge Bissoon agreed. By order dated September 29, 2014, she concluded that, despite minor tweaks, Belle was a redux of Camesi in which the theories of liability remained materially unchanged. As in Belle, numerous individuals filed consents to opt in to Halle before Judge Bissoon had an opportunity to address whether a collective action should be conditionally certified. Also as in Belle, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the collective action allegations on the ground of issue preclusion. On November 6, 2014, Judge Bissoon granted the motion, incorporating by reference her opinion on issue preclusion in Belle. On July 27, 2015, the sole named plaintiff in Halle, Steven Halle, accepted an offer of judgment from West Penn under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the amount of $2,392.00 for back pay and liquidated damages. Consistent with the terms of Halle's acceptance, Judge Bissoon entered judgment against West Penn, dismissed Halle's claims against the remaining defendants with prejudice, and administratively closed the case. Three of the Halle opt-in plaintiffs, Senora Tarpley, KatieJo Bigenho, and Wayne Haber filed an appeal. Steven Halle did not appeal and is not participating in the appeal. Appellants are three hospital employees who claim they were not properly compensated for work performed during meal breaks. Appellants contend it would be unfair to dismiss the appeal because it leaves the opt-in plaintiffs without an opportunity to obtain appellate review of Judge Bissoon's decision to dismiss the collective allegations from Halle's complaint now that West Penn has picked off Halle by offering him a Rule 68 judgment which mooted his claims. Chief Judge Smith dismissed the appeal and observed that when the opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, they did not suffer an adverse judgment on the merits of any claim. They lost nothing but the ability to proceed in Halle's case. That does not give rise to a right to pursue an appeal from Halle's individual final judgment. To obtain appellate review of an order decertifying a collective action, the plaintiff must either proceed to a final judgment on the merits of his or her individual claims or seek the District Court's permission to pursue an immediate appeal. A copy of Chief Judge Smith's opinion dated November 18, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/AxBofU from Leagle.com. David S. Fryman -- fryman@ballardspahr.com -- Elizabeth K. McManus -- mcmanuse@ballardspahr.com%20 -- at Ballard Spahr LLP, Counsel for Appellee Counsel for Appellant: Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq. J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Thomas & Solomon 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: 877-272-4066 The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and J. Michael Fisher WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Nedd" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Nedd, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03363 (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY -- http://windhaven.insurancestep.com -- offers auto insurance coverage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. Robert N. Sutton, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A. 543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103 Maitland, FL 32751 Phone: (407) 622-6544 Fax: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney rsutton@lblaw.attorney WYANDOTTE, MI: Tax Statute Deprives Dist. Court of Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder of the United States Court of Appeald, Sixth Circuit, vacated the district court's opinion and remanded the case so that the district court may remand the case to state court, in the case JAMES P. PAGE, individually and in a representative capacity, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WYANDOTTE, MI, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2442 (6th Cir.) The City of Wyandotte provides water, cable television, and internet services to its residents through Wyandotte Municipal Services (WMS), a department of the City, and WMS Cable, a subdepartment. Plaintiff James Page resides in the City of Wyandotte, Michigan, and receives water and cable services from the City owned utilities. Page sued the City, its mayor, and its City Council in state court, alleging that the transfers violate the United States Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and the City Charter, and alleging various other common law grounds for relief. He sought certification as a class action, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, damages, and attorney fees. The City removed the case to federal court, citing Page's federal constitutional claims. But Page moved to remand, arguing that, because the franchise fees are taxes, the Tax Injunction Act deprived the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion to remand with respect to Page's federal claims, proceeding to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Noting simply that it had federal question jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claims, the district court concluded that it was sufficient for it to exercise jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Page's state law claims, and it remanded those claims to the state court. Page filed a motion for reconsideration, but the district court did not clarify its reasoning. The district court later granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims under Rule 12(c). Page appeals the denial of his motion to remand and the dismissal of his claims. Judge Batchelder agrees with Page that the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear Page's case. The 6th Circuit vacated the district court's opinion and remanded so that the district court may remand the case to state court. Judge Batchelder says even if the City could somehow demonstrate that the revenue from the franchise fees covered the portion of the cost of providing City services that is attributable to the utilities, she is still convinced that the franchise fees would be taxes within the meaning of the Act. The Tax Injunction Act therefore bars federal court jurisdiction over Page's attempt to enjoin, suspend or restrain that revenue stream. A copy of Judge Batchelder's opinion dated November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/fAlTyQ from Leagle.com. ZIMMER BIOMET: January 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ("Zimmer" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZBH) and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zimmer securities between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/zbh. 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"). Zimmer designs, develops, manufactures and markets orthopedics products, including knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, foot and ankle artificial joints and dental prostheses. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) supply chain problems led to a reduction in order fulfillment rates, particularly in Zimmer's knee and hip portfolios; (2) as a result, Zimmer would not meet its revenues and profit projection; and (3) consequently, Zimmer's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/zbh or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Zimmer you have until January 31, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. * CFPB's Effort to Curb Mandatory Arbitration May Face Challenges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Schroeder, writing for The Hill, reports that president- elect Donald Trump would be able to roll back financial regulations worth at least $1.7 billion to the industry and others that must meet those rules, according to new analysis. There are nine rule-writing projects recently completed by regulators that Trump would be able to immediately rescind after taking office, as the incoming president has vowed to dismantle the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Making major changes to the law could be politically tricky, given that easing rules on the financial sector typically serves as a potent attack for advocates for tougher rules. Democrats are likely to fight hard on making wholesale changes to the law, enacted in 2010 following the financial crisis. But the conservative American Action Forum has identified nine regulations that Trump would be able to immediately shelve, even with no help from Congress. That's because those rules have been completed within the last 60 legislative days of the current Congress. The Congressional Review Act empowers the next Congress and administration to rescind those new rules until Congress decides to give them the green light. None of the rules are cornerstones of Dodd-Frank; nearly all the major rules have already been completed and would require legislation to alter or repeal. But they do add up to a significant amount of work for those who would have to comply -- $1.7 billion in estimated costs and 1.2 million compliance hours. The rules cover a wide range of issues, including detailing how records and data should be kept, as well as several rules aimed at the derivatives marketplace. The largest rule on the chopping block is a project from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Those rules, finalized in June, require companies to publicly disclose any payments made to governments worldwide to facilitate the extraction of oil, natural gas or other minerals. The regulations, aimed at fighting corruption and keeping governments accountable for these types of projects, were estimated to cost companies $1.2 billion and require 217,408 hours to comply. And there are other unfinished pieces of regulatory work that also stand to hit a roadblock, whether they are completed in President Obama's final days in office or as Trump takes control. One of the largest looming on the horizon is a rule-writing project from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That agency has expressed a desire to curb the use of "mandatory arbitration" language in consumer financial contracts, which bars people from taking companies to court in class-action lawsuits. That rule was proposed in May and has yet to be finalized. It has already attracted criticism from Republicans and industry backers, and faces a difficult path to completion with a Trump administration on its way. ********* 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 * * *