/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 255 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Depakote Personal Injury Cases Consolidated ADVANCED CARE: TCPA Class Action Settled for $9.25 Million AFL: Website Launched for Sport Concussion Class Action ALABAMA: Trial Begins in ADOC Mental Health Class Action ALLSAINTS USA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Receipt Class Action ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Court Rules on Bids to Strike Evidence AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Voluntarily Withdrawn AMSHER COLLECTION: Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Filed ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: 5th Cir. Rules on Jurisdiction Issue ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Boucher Class Certification Bid Continued BARKWORKS: Lawsuit Serves as Warning for Would-Be Puppy Purchasers BELLAMY'S: Directors Brace for Investor Class Action CALHOUN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL: Inmate's Class Cert. Bid Tossed CEMPRA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit CHEVRON: Seeks Dismissal of Nigerian Gas Rig Blast Class Action COASTAL CHEMICAL: Rooks Seeks to Certify Land Technicians Class COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed COPELAND SCROLL: Judge Moore Recuses Himself from Class Action CRAWFORD AND COMPANY: "Elbling" Suit Seeks Unpaid Benefits DAKOTA PLAINS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit DESIGNED RECEIVABLES: Class Certification Sought in "Kochlani" DIGNITY HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review ERISA Appellate Rulings DOLLAR GENERAL: "Lambert" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid Due May 1 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Two Discrimination Lawsuits Reinstated FELICIA NORWOOD: Class Certification Hearing Continued FIAT CHRYSLER: Volkswagen Attorney to Defend Emissions Case FIELDTURF USA: Newark School System Files Class Action FIELDTURF: Bloomfield Township Reacts to Duraspine Controversy FLOWERS FOODS: Settles North Carolina Class Action for $9-Mil. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Smith Seeks to Certify Health Aides Class GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Gold" Suit GEORGIA: Reaches Milestone in Child Protection Class Action GLOBAL SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in Hofer" Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Rate Rigging Class Action For $77.3 Million HAL HAYS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Duarte" Suit Claims HARTFORD, IN: Judge Weighs in on Sex Offender Ordinance HOEGH AS: BC Court May Hear RoRo Price Fixing Class Action IMPRIMIS PHARMA: Sobol's Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Tossed INDONESIA: Jakarta Governor Faces Class Action Over Blasphemy JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising JETSUITE INC: Ward Asks Court to Approve Deal, Certify Class JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds Investors of Suit KARIS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gertie" Suit in Ill. Over Value Meal LEONE HALPIN: "Palin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Scroggins Seeks Class & Subclass Certification MADISON, IL: Dismissal of "Bueker" Claim vs RLI Affirmed MANALAPAN, FL: Dismissal of "Navellier" Suit Partly Affirmed MAXIMUS INC: "Harvey" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action MCBURNEY CONCRETE: "Paz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MCDONALD'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Verma Seeks Certification of 2 Classes MISHAWAKA HOUSING: Court Narrows Claims in "Wright" Suit MYER: Judge Tosses Shareholder Litigator's Class Action NARCONON: Judge Wu Denied Bid to Certify Class & Subclass NATIONAL SERVICE: "Meyer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class NBTY INC: CAF Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado" NEW ALLIANCE: Consumer Can't Bring TCPA Class Action Claims NEW ORIENTAL: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Overcharging Suit Belongs to Dist. Court NZK PRODUCTIONS: Ex-Production Assistant Sues Over Meal Breaks ORLEANS PARISH: Deceased Inmate's Family Sues Sheriff PAIN THERAPEUTICS: January 16 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action PILOT CORP: "Wright" Claims Belong to Dist. Court, 11th Cir. Says POST HOLDINGS: Settles Egg Antitrust Class Action Claims PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Blue Ash Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action PROSTEAM CARPET: "Wegat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages QUICKEN LOANS: "McLemore" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Seeks Certification of Class RED APPLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Conway" Suit Claims REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Class Certification ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Rich Seeks to Certify Drivers Class ROOMS TO GO NORTH: Sued Over ForceField Protection Plans ROSS STUART: Court Narrows Claims in "Burns" Suit RSI ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit RUTHERFORD COUNTY: Certification of Students Class Sought SAMSUNG: To Begin Galaxy Note 7 Software Update Amid Class Action SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL: Montana Files Suit Seeking Damages SCORES BALTIMORE: Strip Club Dancers File Wage Suit SIRIUSXM: Turtles Royalty Class Action Settlement Favorable SMART TOYS: Faces We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Byrd" Suit Says SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Khaziran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages STARBUCKS: Court to Review De Minimis Doctrine Issue Next Year STERN & EISENBERG: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Beach" Suit THERANOS: Investors File Securities Class Action TREEHOUSE FOODS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Recount Fraud Class Action Litigation UBS FINANCIAL: Pretrial, Settlement Conference Moved to March 7 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano Seeks Certification of Class USAA CASUALTY: Montana Reverses "Byorth" Class Certification USF REDDAWAY: Moss, et al. Seek Certification of Class VENTURE DATA: Bid for Class Certification Sought in "Mey" Action VIRGINIA: Study Reports on Driver's License Suspensions VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Okimoto Seeks Certification of Class VOLKSWAGEN: EU to Take Action v. 7 Member States Over Emissions WACKENHUT CORP: Statistical Sampling Allowed to Certify Case WAL-MART STORES: Court Nixes Female Employee's Gender Bias Claims WALLACE & RUSH: Court Denied FLSA Class Certification Bid as Moot WELLS FARGO: Closed-Door Arbitration Draws Legislative Backlash XEROX CORPORATION: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit YAHOO! INC: 5 of 23 Data Breach Suits Joined in San Jose Court ZIMBABWE: Lawyers Mull Class Action Over Exorbitant Bank Charges ZOO PRINTING: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements * Environmental Class Actions Expected to Grow in Australia * Retirement Plan Class Action Trend to Continue in 2017 ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Zimmerman, Sara Hartman, Iysha Abed, Robert Weinstein, Jill Schulson, and Leia Pinto v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Case No. 2:16- cv-06417-AB (E.D. Penn., December 12, 2016), arises from a series of bilateral no-bidding agreements between 1-800 Contacts and numerous competitors in the market for online sales of contact lenses that prevent the parties to those agreements from competing against one another through online search advertisements. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. is the largest online seller of contact lenses in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Wolson, Esq. Jerry R. De Siderato, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON, LLP 1500 Market St., Suite 3500E Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail: jwolson@dilworthlaw.com jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Depakote Personal Injury Cases Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE DEPAKOTE: RHEALYN ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12- CV-52-NJR-SCW. Lead Consolidated Case (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel has issued an order to join cases together as to common issues of fact and law to facilitate the resolution of the vast number of outstanding cases alleging injury by Abbott Laboratories Inc.'s product, Depakote. The Court currently has 129 cases, involving approximately 698 plaintiffs, pending on its docket directly related to the Depakote litigation. Noting that the bellwether process and global settlement efforts have failed, Judge Rosenstengel determined that batching the cases together along common issues of fact and law is the only way to effectively, efficiently, and justly move through the volume of cases before the Court. Judge Rosenstengel thereby vacated the trial dates of the three remaining bellwether trials: (1) H.B. and parent Stacy Bartolini, 12-cv-0053; (2) T.C. and parent Kayla Rose McGuinness-Colon, 12-cv-0694; and (3) E.R.G. and parent Christina Raquel, 12-cv-0055. Consequently, the judge also denied the pending pretrial motions specifically related to each of the three cases, as well as in case number 15-cv-702 and 14-cv-847, without prejudice to be refiled at a later date. However, Plaintiff's Motions to Show Good Cause Regarding Sealed Documents in case No. 15-cv-702 were granted. Judge Rosenstengel designated Case No. 12-cv-52-NJR-SCW, Alexander et al., v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. as the lead case for claims involving Depakote litigation, and the Court will be establishing a Plaintiffs' Leadership Counsel and will be soliciting names for Lead and/or Liaison counsel by separate order. A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's November 22, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/8qHrWU from Leagle.com. Regina Vickers, Plaintiff, represented by Lance P. Brown, Sam C. Mitchell & Associates. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas S. Teasdale -- dteasdale@teasdalelaw.com -- Teasdale & Associates, LLC. ADVANCED CARE: TCPA Class Action Settled for $9.25 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- William Daley and Kathryn Rattigan of JD Supra Business Advisor reports that earlier this month, a Louisiana federal judge granted final approval of a $9.25 million settlement between Advanced Care Scripts Inc. (Advanced Care) and a class of plaintiffs--led by Jefferson Radiation Oncology LLC (Jefferson Radiation), a Louisiana-based treatment facility. Plaintiffs alleged that Advanced Care sent fax advertisements that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by failing to include the federally mandated opt-out notice. The class of potentially 24,000 members consisted of anyone who received faxes from Advanced Care or its vendors that failed to include the opt-out provision, reaching all the way back to April 29, 2011. Advanced Care attempted to place liability on WestFax Inc.(WestFax)--the third party vendor it hired to transmit the faxes--claiming WestFax represented that the opt-out notices were included. However, that attempt fell short when, after moving for summary judgment, all claims against WestFax were dismissed in early July. This case illustrates that failure to adhere to the TCPA's stringent requirements can result in major financial ramifications for businesses. Businesses should be sure that autodialed faxes are being sent in compliance with the TCPA's requirements. Moreover, there is another takeaway from this settlement -- businesses may encounter difficulties when attempting to assign liability to telecommunications companies. AFL: Website Launched for Sport Concussion Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Cherny, writing for The Age, reports that a professional sports concussion class action in Australia is a step closer after the launch of a website seeking expressions of interest from former athletes. The website concussionmatters.com.au is by outspoken concussion campaigner Peter Jess, the veteran player agent who has long railed against perceived inaction from the AFL in relation to head injuries. The website asks players to detail their condition and diagnosis. "We want to help you and provide an opportunity for you to obtain medical support and adequate compensation," the website says. "If you suffered concussion/head injury while playing sport -- AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Soccer, Basketball or other professional sports -- we want to ensure you have access to proper medical support and are compensated for the effect this may have on your life -- now or in the future. "Concussion Matters will contact everyone who registers and will arrange to test those most at risk using multi-modality analysis using objective and validated neurological testing methods. "In addition to diagnosing potential medical issues, Concussion Matters will seek to develop a Class Action to compensate those people who have been affected." Concussion has become an increasingly sensitive topic in Australian sport. The Australian Athletes Alliance -- a conglomerate of Australian player unions -- recently established a concussion working group with the aim of funding independent research into concussion. The AFL has helped bankroll research into the effects of head knocks to players, although a timeframe for the release of data has been elusive. The league also sent a contingent to the recent International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport in Berlin. Several AFL players have retired in recent seasons as a result of concussion, including Brisbane Lions pair Matt Maguire and Justin Clarke, North Melbourne's Leigh Adams and Geelong's Sam Blease. Melbourne's Heritier Lumumba had much of his 2016 season wiped out because of concussion, and is set to retire as a result. The prospect of the former Collingwood player taking legal action against the Demons has been mooted. Cricket Australia has also upped its game in terms of concussion management, recently introducing a concussion substitute -- one of the recommendations to come from an independent report into the death of Phillip Hughes following a blow to the head from a bouncer in November 2014. The extent of the concussion problem is however contentious. Earlier this year, Associate Professor Paul McCrory -- who is part of the AFL's concussion working group -- slammed the media for "over-simplifying" the issue, particularly in the US where the NFL finalised a $US1 billion settlement with thousands of former players. There is also a divergence in views surrounding the management of concussions. A recent Harvard University study into the health of American football players questioned practices surrounding club doctors, and whether players, suggesting that players better utilise personal doctors. "Club doctors are clearly fundamental to protecting and promoting player health," the report said. "Yet given the various roles just described, it is evident that they face an inherent structural conflict of interest. This is not a moral judgment about them as competent professionals or devoted individuals, but rather a simple fact of the current organisational structure of their position in which they simultaneously perform at least two roles that are not necessarily compatible." ALABAMA: Trial Begins in ADOC Mental Health Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Open Minds reports that a trial started on December 5 for a class action lawsuit against the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC); the plaintiffs allege that the state's prison mental health services are so inadequate that the system violates the prisoners' rights to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. The lawsuit, Braggs, et al., v. Jefferson Dunn, et al., was filed in June 2014 by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) on behalf of the 25,000 Alabamians in state custody. It alleges ADOC neglected inmates' health needs and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. ALLSAINTS USA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Receipt Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the U.S. wing of a British high-end retail clothier has failed in a gambit to persuade a federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging it broke federal law by printing too many credit card digits on its customers' receipts -- and has been stuck with a bill for $58,000 for its opponents' legal costs, as the federal judge sent the case back to Cook County court for further proceedings. On Dec. 7, U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo remanded to Cook County Circuit Court the class action lawsuit brought by Chicago law firm Edelson P.C. on behalf of plaintiff Barbara Mocek and perhaps hundreds of others against AllSaints USA, a United Kingdom-based retailer of leather coats and other clothing. AllSaints operates retail outlets across the U.S., including in the Chicago area, and operates a distribution center in Bolingbrook. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in July in Cook County court, Ms. Mocek had accused AllSaints of violating the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by issuing receipts to customers on which were printed 10 of the digits from the credit card customers had used to pay for their purchases. The lawsuit noted the federal law allowed only up to five digits to be printed on those receipts. The lawsuit said this practice by AllSaints allegedly left "thousands of AllSaints customers . . . burdened with a heightened risk of payment card fraud and identity theft" by exponentially increasing the ease with which identity thieves could guess customers' 16-digit credit card numbers. Ms. Mocek alleged she had received such a receipt, on which were printed 10 of her credit card's digits, while shopping at an AllSaints store in Rosemont. Ms. Mocek's lawsuit demanded AllSaints be made to pay "actual, statutory and punitive damages" for violating the FACTA. In response to Ms. Mocek's legal action, AllSaints moved to transfer the case to Chicago federal court, asserting it was a more proper venue for the lawsuit. However, just a month after taking the case to federal court, AllSaints filed a motion on Sept. 30, asking Judge Bucklo to dismiss the case altogether, asserting the federal court itself lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. To support its assertion, AllSaints cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Spokeo decision, in which the court found plaintiffs need to demonstrate a concrete injury stemming from a technical violation of a privacy law, such as FACTA. In response to that request, Ms. Mocek's attorneys asked Judge Bucklo to allow them to continue their lawsuit in Cook County court, where they had originally filed the case, and to sanction AllSaints for effectively prolonging the litigation by sending it to federal court to begin with. Judge Bucklo backed Ms. Mocek's position, saying federal law dictates in a case in which both parties believe a federal court lacks jurisdiction, the case should be returned to state courts for further proceedings. Judge Bucklo also declined to analyze the case in light of the Supreme Court's findings in Spokeo. And she agreed that AllSaints should be made to pay for their maneuver, saying AllSaints "lacked an 'objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.'" "To be clear, there is no question that if defendant wished to litigate the merits of plaintiff's federal claim in a federal forum, it was free to remove the case and seek to establish federal jurisdiction, regardless of whether I may ultimately have concluded that plaintiff lacked standing under Spokeo," Judge Bucklo wrote. "But defendant did not pursue that avenue. Instead, defendant tried to have it both ways by asserting, then immediately disavowing, federal jurisdiction, apparently in hopes of achieving outright dismissal, with prejudice, rather than the remand required by (federal law.)" Judge Bucklo ordered AllSaints to pay Edelson $58,112, which were the fees she determined were generated in litigating the matter in federal court. AllSaints was represented in the matter by the firm of Proskauer Rose LLP, with offices in Chicago and New York. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Court Rules on Bids to Strike Evidence --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey Cole denied the plaintiff's first motion to strike, but granted the plaintiff's second motion to strike evidence in the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, No. 12 C 3233 (N.D. Ill.). The plaintiff has filed two separate motions: the first is a motion to strike evidence that the defendants have relied on in their motion for summary judgment and in their response to the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The second came a month and a half after the defendants had filed their response. The plaintiff targeted 14 of the Declarations the defendants attached to and relied upon in their response brief. Five of those 14 Declarations are apparently also a part of another "junk fax" case the plaintiff has filed, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. A-S Medications, 12-CV-5105, which is pending before Judge Gottschall. The Declarations are relevant to the issue of predominance as it relates to individualized issues of consent to receive faxes. The plaintiff filed its second motion to strike -- targeting a fifteenth Declaration, that of Judi Desorcie -- on July 21, 2016. While it is unclear why the plaintiff needed 52 or even 45 days to file a motion to strike, the plaintiff claimed surprise and argued that none of the 15 Declarants was properly disclosed by the defendants during discovery, that they should be barred from testifying and their Declarations stricken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). The defendants first argued that the identities of the 14 Declarants "were otherwise made known" to the plaintiff in 2013 when the defendants produced "BFX Reports." The plaintiff pointed out that this list contained 17,781 names or fax targets, and that there has been no elaboration by the defendants either at the time of production or by way of subsequent disclosure under Rule 26(1)(a). The plaintiff submitted that it is asking far too much for the production of this extensive list to constitute making the 14 Declarants "otherwise known" through the "discovery process or in writing" as required by Rule 26(e)(1)(A). Judge Cole pointed out that although well over 17,000 entries is a huge list to pour over, still, the plaintiff is the master of its law suit and thus is the arbiter of the parameters of the litigation. The judge stated that obviously, bringing a massive class action against a business necessitates obtaining and sifting through far more discovery than would have been imposed upon plaintiff and counsel had they limited their pursuit to plaintiff's individual claim. The judge noted that the plaintiff did not call the Court's attention to any point in discovery where it requested information from the defendants as to who from the BFX lists might have solicited faxes or consented to receive them from the defendants. To the judge, it seemed that, once the plaintiff had the massive list, the plaintiff chose not to initiate any further or pointed inquiry. Further, Judge Cole found that there would seem to be little if any prejudice to be cured. The judge noted that, according to the plaintiff's reply in support of its motion for class certification, the Declarations are "of no evidentiary value whatsoever" because, while the Declarants claim they gave permission for faxes, they cannot even remember receiving any or when they gave permission. Finally, Judge Cole found that there appears to be no likelihood of disruption to trial and that there is little or no evidene of bad faith. The second undisclosed yet allegedly revealed witness is Ms. Desorcie, one of defendants' employees. According to the defendants, the plaintiff learned of Ms. Desorcie at the deposition of Yaniv Schiff in another case pending before Judge Gottschall some years earlier. The defendants asked the court to find that Ms. Desorcie was "otherwise made known" as a witness in this case through the cryptic deposition testimony and comments of another witness and in a different case before Judge Gottschall. Judge Cole, however, found that the defendants' contention that Ms. Desorcie's role as a witness in this case was made known through the discovery process in an earlier case before a different judge and in the context of the deposition on which the defendants rely, makes a mockery out of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) and the full disclosure of information that the Rules seek to achieve. Judge Cole thus held that Ms. Desorcie's Declaration must be stricken and will not be considered in the resolution of the pending dispositive motions and, should this matter go to trial, she will not be allowed to testify. A full-text copy of Judge Cole's December 2, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/Nct3rB from Leagle.com. Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek -- christopher@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, James Michael Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, John P. Orellana, Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Julia Lynn Titolo -- julia@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Kerry Ann Bute -- kbute@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie & Johnson, LPA, Matthew Elton Stubbs -- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery Rennie & Jonson, Max G. Margulis, Margulis Law Group, Ross Michael Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Tod Allen Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC & Wallace Cyril Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca. Allscripts-Misy's Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser -- lkiser@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew Jacob Chinsky -- achinsky@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin Llp & Lawrence P. Fogel -- lawrence.fogel@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, Defendants, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP. Defendant, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Voluntarily Withdrawn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit styled as Lucas Huddleston, the Plaintiff, v. American Airlines, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09100 (N.D. Ill.), providing for the voluntary withdrawal of a motion for class certification by agreement of the parties without prejudice to refiling at a later date. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 14, 2016, initial disclosures were to be made by December 2, 2016. Fact Discovery will close on September 5, 2017. Initial Rule Expert Disclosures are due by October 5, 2017. Disclosures of Rebuttal Experts are due by November 6, 2017. All Expert Discovery will be completed by December 5, 2017. Status hearing is set for April 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aROs9H90 AMSHER COLLECTION: Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01656-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class. The Plaintiff further moves the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W1zP31cy The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: 5th Cir. Rules on Jurisdiction Issue --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOAN GALE FRANK; JON A. BELL; DOCTOR SAMUEL BUKRINSKY; JAIME ALEXIS ARROYO BORNSTEIN; PEGGY ROIF ROTSTAIN; JUAN C. OLANO; JOHN WADE, in his capacity as trustee of the Microchip ID Systems, Inc. Retirement Plan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, Defendant- Appellant. THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15- 10717, Cons. with No. 15-10788 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed in part a district court's determination that it had jurisdiction over the suits involving the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda ("Antigua"), and its alleged involvement with the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The consolidated cases involved in the appeal are: (1) Frank et al. v. Commonwealth of Antigua & Barbuda, No. 15-10717 (the "Frank suit"); and (2) Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua & Barbuda, No. 15-10788 (the "OSIC suit"). As a foreign nation, Antigua challenged the district court's jurisdiction in each suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The district court determined that it had jurisdiction over the suits under both the commercial activity and waiver exceptions of the FSIA. Antigua appealed the district court's rulings, but did not contest the application of the commercial activity exception to OSIC's breach of contract claims. With regards to the commercial activity exception, Frank and OSIC argued that two different financial losses had a "direct effect" on investors in the United States: (1) Stanford's Ponzi scheme itself and (2) Antigua's failure to repay the loans it received from Stanford. The Fifth Circuit, however, found that the plaintiffs' theories failed to satisfy the "direct effect" requirement of the commercial activity exception. The appellate court found that the financial loss to American investors involved in Stanford's Ponzi scheme is not an "immediate consequence" of Antigua's actions because Stanford's criminal activity served as an intervening act interrupting the causal chain between Antigua's actions and any effect on investors. The appellate court also found that the relationship between Antigua and the plaintiffs is too indirect to satisfy the "direct effect" requirement. The Fifth Circuit thus reversed the district court's holding that the commercial activity exception applies to the Frank suit and OSIC's tort and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) claims. The district court also found that provisions of two loan agreements that Antigua entered into with Stanford explicitly waived sovereign immunity for OSIC's contract claims based on either loan. The agreement for the first of the loans, referred to as the "$40 Million Loan," was provided to Antigua to "pay salaries and for other discretionary purposes." The second loan, referred to as the "$31 Million Loan," was provided to Antigua by Stanford to build a hospital. Antigua contested the scope of the district court's waiver ruling and asked the Fifth Circuit to limit the district court's ruling on the waiver exception to apply only to $71 million ($31 Million Loan + $40 Million Loan) in breach of contract claims. The appellate court, however, found that the district court's order itself already provides Antigua with the relief it seeks. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's November 22, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/XYhxgH from Leagle.com. ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Boucher Class Certification Bid Continued ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William C. Griesbach entered an order in the lawsuit captioned as HEATHER L. BOUCHER, the Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS INC. and JANE AND JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No 1:16-cv-01629-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), granting Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue her motion for class certification. Plaintiff Heather Boucher brought this putative class action against Defendants Associated Collectors Inc. and Jane and John Does, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qIc4VP40 BARKWORKS: Lawsuit Serves as Warning for Would-Be Puppy Purchasers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yubanet.com reports that the holiday season is already in full gear and the Animal Legal Defense Fund has a message for those considering a puppy as a gift: do your research. The sad reality is that pet stores still receive their supply of puppies mainly through puppy mills. Puppy mills are breeding facilities that treat puppies as cash crops instead of living, feeling animals, employing horrendous standards of care for the mother dogs and producing sick animals prone to illness, injury, genetic and behavioral problems. No matter how cute that puppy in the window is, you do not want to support puppy mills this holiday season. An ongoing lawsuit against southern California pet store chain Barkworks alleges the store works hard to hide the awful truth about the puppies they peddle. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the nation's preeminent legal advocacy organization for animals, is representing aggrieved consumers as Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit against Barkworks for the company's pattern and practice of misleading purchasers about the health and source of their puppies. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of thousands of consumers, claim they were led to believe by Barkworks that they were bringing home a healthy puppy from a reputable breeder when, in reality, Barkworks routinely sources from puppy mills whom have been cited by the USDA for violations, and its medical, transport and sanitary protocols do little to protect the health of these fragile young puppies. As a result, the Plaintiffs allege, many consumers were deceived into purchasing puppies from deplorable puppy mills and these puppies faced numerous medical problems upon purchase. On Nov. 14 the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in Orange County Superior Court, Complex Division, before Judge Thierry Colaw, arguing the lawsuit should proceed as a class action because the Plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of fellow puppy purchasers exposed to Barkworks' harmful misrepresentations and business practices in similar ways. Nearly every week, additional puppy purchasers come forward with tragically familiar stories. These purchasers have suffered financially and emotionally, spending hundreds to thousands of dollars on veterinary care for their new puppies, and watching the animals struggle with illnesses and even die of their diseases within a matter of months or a few years. Plaintiffs will file their reply brief in support of their motion for class certification just before Christmas, with a hearing set for January 27, 2017. "People considering buying a dog this holiday season can avoid supporting puppy mills by rescuing a companion from a shelter instead," says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "This holiday season, remember that a puppy is a lifetime companion and commitment, not a cute gift in a store window." Consumers who purchased a dog from Barkworks are encouraged to contact the Animal Legal Defense Fund at legalcase@aldf.org or 707-795-2533. BELLAMY'S: Directors Brace for Investor Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Elysse Morgan, writing for ABC, reports that baby formula maker Bellamy's has gone sour, entering into a trading halt to try to end a horror sell-off sparked by fears that weaker-than-expected sales in China could get worse. In the last financial year it was one of the ASX's fastest-growing companies, with its share price up 133 per cent and profit up 322 per cent, but a shock update to investors wiped half a billion dollars from the company's share price in minutes. So is the dream over for Bellamy's and what's the deal with China? What changed? On December 2, Bellamy's came out with a truth bomb to investors: China sales aren't going as well as hoped and there are some big regulatory hurdles on the near horizon. Bellamy's warned that changes to China's food import rules had led to stockpiles of its product and demand was not meeting forecasts. The news had analysts slashing earnings forecasts, stunning investors, who promptly dumped the stock -- it lost 43 per cent that day to end at $6.85. It has since fallen further, closing at $6.68 before going into the trading halt on Dec. 12. The news came two months after the company's annual general meeting, where it now appears that Bellamy's may have glossed over the headwinds coming from China. At the October meeting, the success of Bellamy's in China was heralded with "revenues up 331 per cent" and regulatory changes were portrayed as "long-term growth opportunities", with chief executive Laura McBain informing investors that the company had been planning for the changes "for two years". But the December 2 update reveals it could be much more than that and the trading update expected on Dec. 7 would hopefully bring more information to the table for investors. Bosses are under question The whole episode has meant a big loss of credibility for Bellamy's management, particularly the chief executive. Ms McBain was already under fire from investors, who voted down her $1,380,000 pay packet at the AGM, scoring the company its first strike. It was also not a good look when Ms McBain and chairman Rob Woolley sold some of their Bellamy shares in August shortly after the company's share price hit an eight-month high, netting them $2.4 million and $2.92 million respectively. There are serious questions about who knew what when. In response to an ASX enquiry over the update of December 2, Bellamy's management says it only became aware of the material impact of the slow November sales that morning. Corporate governance expert Professor Stephen Taylor says that is unlikely. "The nature of the disclosures that have been made are difficult to reconcile with the absence of any seismic event that could have caused a sudden disruption to sales patterns -- it is something that would have developed over time," he says. Is this the beginning of the end? It is unlikely that this would be the end of Bellamy's, more like the end of its darling status. Nearly three quarters of Bellamy's revenue comes from sales in Australia, which should in theory not be at risk from changing Chinese tastes and regulatory changes. However, a proportion of those sales are to customers who send it overseas at a mark-up. Bellamy's strategy for growth was further penetration into China and South-East Asia. Growth in China was running at 24 per cent a year versus low single-digit growth within Australia. What's worrying for investors is that if the Chinese strategy is at risk, then the company's entire business model is looking a lot less appetising. The share price was expected to take another battering on Dec. 14 when the company was expected to come out of its trading halt with the release of another update. "The fact they are releasing a full review of operations means they will have found weaknesses and I expect a negative reaction on the market. How low it will go will depend on how far off renewed estimates they are," Professor Taylor says. Will Blackmores and A2 suffer the same fate? Bellamy's is not the only company which has found favour by capitalising on Chinese hunger for Australian health products. A2 milk is perhaps the company whose business model most closely resembles Bellamy's. While Bellamy's point of difference is being organic, A2's point of difference is that its milk products only contain A2 protein, which it claims means less tummy discomfort for consumers. CLSA investment analyst Shaun Weick says A2 Milk is still a buy because of its formula's strong performance in China, which "reflects the growing relative strength of the product, indicating increased trust and brand credibility amongst Chinese parents". Credit Suisse agrees and suggests that the fall in A2 Milk's share price, thanks to Bellamy's downfall, could be an opportunity for brave investors. Although Blackmores also produces baby formula, it's best known for its vitamin range, which has experienced a huge swell of demand from China. But like Bellamy's and A2 Milk, the biggest risks for Blackmores are for further changes in Chinese consumer regulation and the risk of cheaper alternatives eating away at its margins. Or, changing tastes. Will shareholders get anything back? The ASX has already sent the company a please explain and it is likely the corporate watchdog ASIC will have a look at who knew what when, and see if there has been a breach of the Corporations Act. The ABC understands that several class action law firms are readying themselves to launch a case against the directors of the company. With slashed earnings forecast it is unlikely that Bellamy's share price will ever hit the heady highs of earlier this year, so those who bought in at the top are likely to remain significantly out of pocket. CALHOUN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL: Inmate's Class Cert. Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Timothy P. Greeley entered an order in the lawsuit entitled VINCENT ONGORI, et al., the Petitioners, v. REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., the Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00224-GJQ-TPG (W.D. Mich.), denying a motion in support of certification of class. Judge Greeley said, "In the report and recommendation that was issued on December 14, 2016, the [Court] determined that Petitioners did not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), which requires that the class have a class representative that will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Because Petitioners are proceeding pro se, they cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.(Generally, pro se prisoners cannot adequately represent a class)". Ms. Aducci is the Field Office Director at the Calhoun County Correctional Center in Michigan. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0YNFmvjC CEMPRA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Cempra, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the January 3, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased Cempra shares during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cempra made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that solithromycin posed significant safety risks for hepatotoxicity, so the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a preliminary review on its website of Cempra's drug, solithromycin, highlighting a significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity. When this news was disclosed to the public, shares of Cempra decreased in value, causing investors harm. CHEVRON: Seeks Dismissal of Nigerian Gas Rig Blast Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Babatunde Akinsola, writing for Naija247 News, reports that citing problems with fraud, a lack of evidence and obstacles to enforcing a U.S. court's judgment overseas, a Chevron attorney on Dec. 9 urged a federal judge not to certify a class of Nigerian residents seeking $1.5 billion in damages over a 2012 gas rig explosion. Lead plaintiff Dr. Foster Ogola sued Chevron in January 2014, claiming an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger Delta Region in Southern Nigeria suffered health problems and loss of income from fishing and farming due to contamination caused by the blast. The KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas drilling well six miles off the coast of Southern Nigeria in North Apoi Field, exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for 46 days. During a hearing on Dec. 9, Chevron attorney Robert Mittelstaedt ticked off a long list of reasons why U.S. District Judge Susan Illston should deny class certification, starting with obstacles in verifying individual claims of income loss, property damage and health problems. Chevron received 5,630 claims for damages from potential class members as of mid-September and found fraudulent signatures or thumbprints on several of the claims forms, according to the oil giant's opposition brief. "Some of the claims were people who had been deceased before the incident," Mr. Mittelstaedt said. He added that the class's counsel, Jacqueline Perry, had acknowledged there would be "bad apples" because Nigeria is a "corrupt place." "The only way to weed out the bad apples is to go one by one," Mr. Mittelstaedt argued. Proving how much Nigerian fishermen actually lost in income due to alleged water contamination poses another challenge, Mr. Mittelstaedt said, because no records exist to verify their income. Mr. Mittelstaedt said Nigerians "rarely" file income tax returns, and that Chevron has received no tax filings from those claiming damages, despite repeated requests. But Judge Illston did not seem totally convinced. "It's troublesome here that because of the way a country conducts its business, they could never have recourse," she said. "That they could never have recourse because of the way they live feels wrong." Mr. Mittelstaedt said the court must rely on the plaintiffs' testimony as evidence, but he pointed out several inconsistencies from Nigerian fishermen's depositions. He showed the judge excerpts from two deposition videos to illustrate his point. The Chevron attorney also argued plaintiffs should press their claims in the proper venue -- Nigerian court -- where at least 70 lawsuits over the 2012 gas rig explosion have already been filed, including one class action. "I assume Chevron is not embracing Nigeria's jurisdiction over it," Judge Illston replied. The judge acknowledged there could be problems ensuring class members would be precluded from pursuing claims over the explosion in Nigerian court if a U.S. court had already awarded damages. Turning to the debate over environmental harm, Mr. Mittelstaedt sought to discredit two of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses as plagiarizers. The plaintiffs asked the court in November for permission to substitute one expert, Professor Jasper Abowei, whom Chevron accused of "self-plagiarizing work from an earlier study," with another expert, Professor Eyiwunmi Falaye. But Mr. Mittelstaedt also hurled accusations of plagiarism at the plaintiff's proposed substitute expert, claiming Falaye copied a report from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and simply changed the words "oil spill" to "gas blowout." Moving past plagiarism, Mr. Mittelstaedt contended that neither expert cited any data related to the gas rig explosion in their reports. He also argued the plaintiffs' analyses of seabed samples failed to identify "in any reasonably scientific way" the impact caused by the blast or its zone of impact. In a reply brief to Chevron's opposition to class certification, the plaintiffs said sonar imaging shows gas has likely continued to seep from the seafloor because of the blast, and that a study of seabed samples "unequivocally" shows the blowout "had long- term, persistent impacts on the surrounding marine habitat." The plaintiffs also say an analysis of roundworms found in seabed samples shows the seafloor habitats were "subject to persistent and ongoing" stress. After about 90 minutes of debate, Judge Illston took the arguments under submission. The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in September 2015 after now-retired U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti dismissed the suit with leave to amend last year. Dr. Ogola and four others were terminated as named plaintiffs in September 2015. Natto Iyela Gbarabe, a fisherman from the Koluama community in the Southern Ijaw Local Government area of Bayelsa State in the Niger Delta, now serves as the sole named plaintiff. Potential damages for the gas rig explosion could exceed $1.5 billion, according to the fourth amended complaint. Chevron, which Forbes names as the world's third-largest oil and gas company, earned $129.9 billion in revenue and $4.58 billion in profits last year, according to the company's 2015 annual report. COASTAL CHEMICAL: Rooks Seeks to Certify Land Technicians Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as KURTIS ROOKS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COASTAL CHEMICAL CO., LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00296 (S.D. Tex.), Rooks asks the Court to certify a class of: "Rooks' coworkers who performed similar job duties and received similar pay." Rooks says Costal Chemical failed to pay its land technicians overtime as required under federal law. Coastal maintained a uniform pay practice of paying the workers a salary and bonus without any overtime compensation, which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OznD6waA The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOHNSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch Matthew S. Partment BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparet@brucknerburch.com COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JAMES WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01657-WED (E.D. Wisc.), Mr. James Williams moves the court to certify a class. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zqtL7JdF The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com COPELAND SCROLL: Judge Moore Recuses Himself from Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lebanon Daily Record reports that an area judge has recused himself from a class action lawsuit against a local manufacturer. On Dec. 6, 26th Judicial Circuit Judge Stanley Moore recused himself from the class action lawsuit against Copeland Scroll Compressors in Lebanon, as well as its parent company, Emerson Electric; two local employees, Laura Rumfelt and Marilyn Brown; and several other companies involved in the manufacture, distribution and monitoring of allegedly dangerous chemicals used at the local plant, including Nalco Chemical, Rohm and Haas Company, ExxonMobil and John P. Jurgiel and Associates, Inc. The case has been sent to the presiding judge's office for judge assignment, according to court records. CRAWFORD AND COMPANY: "Elbling" Suit Seeks Unpaid Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------- RONALD ELBLING, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02951-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover past unpaid benefits due to Plaintiff, and an order enforcing Plaintiff's rights to future benefits. The Plaintiff seeks damages related to the denial of his request for benefits. The exact amount of loss will be subject to proof at the time of trial. In addition, Plaintiff has lost interest on the money owed to him and has incurred attorneys' fees. In light of the fact that Plaintiff has been forced to retain one or more attorneys to represent him in the present action, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of the action. The action arose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and more particularly for the wrongful denial of deferred compensation benefits earned by Plaintiff after 14 years of loyal service to the Defendant. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's employment, he participated in a deferred compensation plan that included earned Long-Term Incentive Credits (LTIC). When he retired, Plaintiff had earned over $76,000 worth of these longterm credits and Plaintiff was fully vested. Immediately after retiring from Crawford, Plaintiff chose to work for competitor Vericlaim, and Defendants subsequently denied him access to his earned LTIC benefits on the basis that Plaintiff violated the non- compete provision of his deferred compensation plan. The non- compete provision was neither restricted geographically nor by length of time. Defendant's non-compete provisions essentially prohibit vested employees from ever working for competitors anywhere in the world. Plaintiff alleges that the Crawford LTIC agreement with Plaintiff and those similarly situated violate public policy because the policy is unfair and discriminatory. Crawford & Company is the world's largest independent provider of claims management solutions to insurance companies and self- insured entities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin N. Schwartz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN NEAL SCHWARTZ 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 289 8887 E-mail: eschwartz@edwinlegal.com DAKOTA PLAINS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Dakota Plains between March 23, 2012 through August 15, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or did not reveal that: (1) Dakota Plains failed to disclose that Ryan Gilbertson and Michael L. Reger, co-founders of Dakota Plains predecessor company, had actual control of Dakota Plains' business and operations; (2) Dakota Plains and its management colluded with Gilbertson and Reger to misappropriate Dakota Plains' assets for Gilbertson and Reger's personal gain at the expenses of Dakota Plains investors; (3) Dakota Plains lacked effective and adequate internal controls; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements about Dakota Plains' business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the Complaint alleges that investors suffered monetary damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- DESIGNED RECEIVABLES: Class Certification Sought in "Kochlani" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled GUY KOCHLANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DESIGNED RECEIVABLES SOLUTIONS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04482- JVS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court in a hearing on October 16, 2017 before the Hon. James V. Selna to certify a class of: "all persons within the United States who received any collection telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint". The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a0Uhi3OP The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review ERISA Appellate Rulings --------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor Law News, reports that a court challenge that pits church-based health networks against ERISA provisions and interpretations is to be heard by the highest court in the land, following notification on December 2 that the US Supreme Court is going to weigh in by agreeing to review recent decisions by the appellate courts. As one of the health networks is based in California, the case is expected to have some influence and impact on California ERISA labor law. At issue is an interpretation of just what a church-affiliated hospital is, and whether or not it has to see affiliation with an actual, brick-and-mortar church in order to qualify for exemptions observed in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Amongst three health networks embroiled in the litigation is Dignity Health, headquartered in California. Dignity has joined with Saint Peter's Healthcare System, based in New Jersey, and Advocate Healthcare Network, which is based in Illinois. The California ERISA dispute mirrored by the other two health networks has to do with provisions and fiduciary tenets normally required by ERISA. There are exemptions, however, for faith-based health networks affiliated with a church, whereby the latter -- assuming they qualify -- do not have to undertake fiduciary obligations and minimum-funding requirements. What got them here was a putative class action launched by employees who assert their employers are not, in actual or real sense affiliated with a church in the first instance, and thus take exception to any claim by the health networks that they qualify for exemption under that qualification. Based upon the assertion the church-based hospital(s) are capitalizing on an ERISA exemption for which they don't correctly qualify, workers are therefore taking the position that their retirement funds have been left vulnerable with the lack of minimum funding requirements, insurance or disclosure should the funds dip beneath a certain plateau. The health networks are fighting back, contending that any reversal of an exemption would oppose long-standing positions taken by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), US Department of Labor (DOL) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Billions of dollars' worth of claims are on the line. According to documents, the Seventh, Third and Ninth Circuits found that the retirement plans of the three networks cannot be excluded from ERISA as "church plans." The health networks appealed their case to the US Supreme Court, which has agreed to review the findings of the lower appellate courts. Religious freedom groups are defending the faith-based health networks, and their decision to take their ERISA case to the highest court in the land. To that end the Alliance Defending Freedom group, in a statement following the decision by the high court to review, said that "the government shouldn't attempt to go into the theology business by assuming it has the ability or expertise to decide whether a faith-based ministry is religious enough to be a ministry." The cases are Saint Peter's Healthcare System et al. v. Laurence Kaplan, Case No. 16-86, Advocate Health Care Network et al., Case No. 16-74, and Dignity Health et. al. v. Starla Robbins, Case No. 16-258, in the Supreme Court of the United States. DOLLAR GENERAL: "Lambert" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled THERA LAMBERT and AMY CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11319 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to certify these classes: National Class: "all persons in the United States who, within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product"; Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: "all persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin who, within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product"; and Illinois Subclass: "all persons in the State of Illinois who, within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product". The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Classes purchased from Defendant the product DG Body Soothing Aloe Gel (the "Product"), for personal use and not for resale. Defendant's claims that its Product contains "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract" are false, and its Product label is misleading. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fSyKTBEp Thera Lambert and Amy Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com jberman@andersonwanca.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303 3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan N. Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238 1700 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. Lance Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com lyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C. First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247 0090 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Susan S. Brown, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 4949 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Lori G. Feldman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 E-mail: denright@zlk.com lfeldman@zlk.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, #209 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237 1775 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Dynavax Technologies Corporation. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between March 10, 2014 and November 11, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm by the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of Dynavax during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that Dynavax made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the phase 3 HBV-23 trial for the Company's lead vaccine product, HEPLISAV-B, was not designed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's concerns and issues; that the Company failed to provide sufficient information to the FDA in its Revised Biologics License Application for the drug; that Dynavax's resources will not be sufficient for the Company to advance the HEPLISAV-B program on its own; and that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements and statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 14, 2016, Dynavax announced that it received a Complete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requesting additional information on the Company's HEPLISAV-B product in connection with its Biologics License Application. When this information was disclosed, shares of Dynavax declined in value, causing investors serious harm. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid Due May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order in the lawsuit captioned as RUDY URENA AND VICTOR URENA V. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, AND EARTHGRAINS BAKING CO., INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-00634-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), granting Plaintiffs' ex parte application seeking to continue the class certification deadline, currently calendared for January 30, 2017, by 90 days. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification is continued to May 1, 2017. Defendants shall have 30 days from the filing of the opening papers to file their opposition. Plaintiffs may file their reply papers within 21 days of the filing of the opposition. The Court shall hear the motion on July 17, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. Any further request for a continuance in this case, however, will be strongly disfavored. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WgamNKd4 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Two Discrimination Lawsuits Reinstated ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamal Eric Watson, writing for Diverse, reports that two federal discrimination lawsuits against the Art Institute of Pittsburgh that were reinstated in October have now advanced in a national class-action process, following the most recent order issued by U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer. The race-discrimination, age-discrimination, and retaliation cases of Michael Scott and LaMont Jones -- former admissions counselors at a school owned by Pittsburgh-based, for-profit college giant Education Management Corporation (EDMC) -- date to 2012, when the two men filed separate charges at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Pittsburgh but were barred from having their subsequent lawsuits heard by a pair of federal judges in Pittsburgh in early 2015. When their cases were reinstated in October, their attorney, Amos Jones, seized on the Third Circuit judges' broad invalidation of the "implied" acceptance that EDMC erroneously claimed existed and barred the lawsuits. The Philadelphia-based three-judge panel unanimously declared this method of arbitration-contract presentation had been struck down in Pennsylvania since at least the year 2000. "We now have national implications in any state where the presence of these now-invalidated arbitration policies caused employees with grievances to forbear from activating their legal recourse toward court under the false pretenses and fraudulent inducements misleading them into thinking they were barred from so doing, starting in Pennsylvania," Mr. Jones said. "By virtue of the broad and clear victory at the Third Circuit, we are undertaking a multi-state analysis to determine where else employees were tricked to their detriment, as former or current employees come forward following the landmark unanimous decision of October." Immediately following the cases' reinstatement, the Pittsburgh plaintiff's class-action firm of Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. joined Amos Jones on the case. In her November 28 order, Fischer, whose 2015 dismissal was overturned but who now has one of the cases back before her, noted that "should the parties wish to consolidate (Jones v. EDMC) with (Scott v. EDMC), the parties shall file a joint motion requesting same" and set a hearing date of December 19. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia agreed with the men in its orders reversing Fischer and U.S. District Court Judges David Cercone, who presides over Scott's case. "Whatever the validity of EDMC's legal theory that continuing to work can, in and of itself, constitute implied assent to new terms of employment, that rule does not control the outcome here," the three-judge panel held in October. Mr. Jones, who as a professor has published on law, economics, and race, lamented what he alleges has been "great waste in these two cases, not our own making at all." "What's so unfortunate," Mr. Jones recalled, "is that, five hours after EDMC management rolled out this fake ADR agreement in October 2012, I painstakingly warned of particular legal deficiencies and advised them, in good faith, that the fate of that company was in their hands, in communication that was later presented in the court filings in these cases. And now, here we are more than four years later, with discrete victims' damages in the millions of dollars, now stretching over several jurisdictions in a massive fraud case morphed exponentially." EDMC's lead counsel, Casey Ryan of Reed Smith LLP in Pittsburgh, did not return a telephone call seeking comment. The Plaintiffs argue that EDMC's attempted curtailment of their rights interfered with in-process federal investigations and the rights relating to those, constituting illegal retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The admissions officers were fired in late 2012 and early 2013, several months after they had filed charges challenging the ADR policy that EDMC announced on October 3, 2012, but made retroactive to July 1, 2012, one month before Messrs. Jones and Scott had filed their federal charges. After EDMC fired them, they amended their EEOC complaints to add the terminations to their cases as well, alleging them to be acts of additional retaliation. Despite EDMC's claims about mandatory arbitration, the men finally sued the school in 2014 for wrongful termination and discrimination. The trial courts dismissed both cases in April 2015 before they were reinstated in October 2016 on appeal. FELICIA NORWOOD: Class Certification Hearing Continued ------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Blake Donegan, the Plaintiff, v. Felicia F. Norwood, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.), generally continuing Plaintiff's motions for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 15, 2016, Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was due by noon on December 20, 2016. The Plaintiff may file a reply if he wishes to do so by 4:30 p.m. on December 21, 2016. The motion is taken under advisement and the Court anticipates a ruling on December 22, 2016. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b7hTpgG0 FIAT CHRYSLER: Volkswagen Attorney to Defend Emissions Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wayland, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a lead attorney involved in Volkswagen AG's diesel emissions-cheating scandal and $14.7 billion settlement will defend Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV against similar accusations. New York-based attorney Robert Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, and two other attorneys on Dec. 6 submitted motions in federal court in San Francisco to appear as counsel for Fiat Chrysler to defend against a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit accuses Fiat Chrysler of installing software made by Robert Bosch GmbH that masked excess exhaust emissions. The German-based auto supplier was behind the software tied to VW's emissions scandal. "The (companies) knowingly concealed the use of an emissions- cheating defeat device and illegally high emissions levels up to 10 times the legal limit in EcoDiesel vehicles, and sold them under false pretenses," according to a release earlier this month from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which filed the lawsuit. The firm estimates that consumers paid premiums of up to $4,700 for vehicles that fail to meet federal emissions standards and are on the road illegally. The suit alleges defeat device affects 140,000 Ram 1500s and 9,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee models, selling at 3,000 per month. Fiat Chrysler, in a statement on Dec. 8, said the company "does not believe that these claims have merit," and it "intends to contest this lawsuit vigorously." The company did not immediately have a comment on Giuffra, who is currently National Coordinating Counsel for Volkswagen in connection to its recent diesel emissions scandal, representing the company. Fiat Chrysler is a longstanding client of Sullivan & Cromwell. Bosch on Dec. 8 did not immediately respond for comment on the litigation. The suit accuses Fiat Chrysler and Bosch of supporting and participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) enterprise, and charges FCA with committing fraudulent concealment, false advertising and acting in violation of consumer-rights laws by selling vehicles equipped with an emissions system that during normal driving conditions emits many multiples of the allowed level of pollutants such as NOx (mono- nitrogen oxides). In order to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers, the lawsuit states that FCA erroneously "claims that 'no NOx' exits the tailpipe." According to the complaint, affected vehicles will "necessarily be worth less in the marketplace because of their decrease in performance and increased wear on their cars' engines. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased the affected vehicles, as well as injunctive relief and equitable relief for FCA and Bosch's misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale and lease of affected vehicles. Wolfsburg-based VW faces an industry-record $16.5 billion, and counting, in criminal and civil litigation fines after admitting last year that its diesel cars were outfitted with a "defeat device" that lowered emissions to legal levels only when it detected the vehicle was being tested. Volkswagen has agreed to a settlement with U.S. regulators that calls for the company to spend about $10 billion to fix or buy back about 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles as a part of a $14.7 billion deal between regulators and the beleaguered German automakers. Under that agreement, Volkswagen will compensate owners who purchased the diesels before September 2015 with payments of $5,100 to $10,000, depending on the age of the car. The class-action lawsuit involving the diesel emissions allegations against Fiat Chrysler is unrelated to other litigation earlier this year involving a gear shifter on more than 1.1 million vehicles that may confuse drivers as well as investigations by federal officials into the automaker's monthly sales reporting practices. FIELDTURF USA: Newark School System Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ FloorDaily reports that FieldTurf USA's legal troubles intensified on December 7 as the Newark, New Jersey school system filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging that it had defrauded more than 100 schools in the state by knowingly selling them faulty athletic fields, according to NJ.com. "The nine-count complaint, which largely relies on NJ Advance Media's reporting, alleges FieldTurf violated the state Consumer Fraud Act by concealing knowledge of the turf's problems, and by failing to change marketing and advertising claims," reports the site. "The suit also alleges breach of contract, negligence and unjust enrichment." FieldTurf officials have strongly denied allegations of fraud and say they did not hide problems with the turf from customers. What's more, they maintain the turf's deterioration does not affect player safety. FieldTurf has been replacing fields that fail while under warranty. The suit only covers New Jersey, though establishments in California, New York, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts have fields in question as well. FIELDTURF: Bloomfield Township Reacts to Duraspine Controversy -------------------------------------------------------------- Erin M Roll, writing for NorthJersey, reports that a brand of athletic turf used on two Bloomfield township fields is coming in for increased scrutiny due to a recent media report. But Parks and Recreation Director Mike Sceurman said on Dec. 9 that the township has not been experiencing any issues with its two Duraspine fields, aside from expected wear and tear in high- traffic sections of the fields. Vassar Field and the Clark's Pond South Field both have Duraspine surfaces, and Mr. Sceurman said that both fields were last redone in 2010. Duraspine is a brand of turf formerly manufactured by the company FieldTurf. NJ Advance Media did a multimedia report called "The 100-Yard Deception," alleging that Duraspine fields start to deteriorate well before the warranty runs out. The report also alleged that the manufacturers had concealed this from would-be buyers for several years. Mr. Sceurman said that it was truthful to say that Bloomfield has not experienced the same issues that some other Duraspine field owners have experienced. "Whether we're lucky, or it's a combination of luck and maintenance, it's hard to say," he said. Mr. Sceurman said that Bloomfield does twice-a-year maintenance on the fields, with an outside contractor coming in to replenish the pellets and check for any debris. This is in addition to routine checks by both the Department of Public Works and the Parks and Recreation staff, he said. And the township also does concussion testing, involving dropping a weighted ball on key parts of the field to simulate a player hitting the ground. Mr. Sceurman said that Vassar is an all-turf field, except for the pitcher's mound, while Clark's Pond is both turf and clay. He mentioned that the fields' drainage systems had performed very well, including during a recent town tournament that took place following a heavy rainstorm. "Five minutes after the rain stopped we were playing baseball again," he said. Glen Ridge's Washington Field is outfitted with a FieldTurf surface as well, but Glen Ridge Parks and Recreation Director Jim Cowan said on Dec. 9 that the field uses another specific model known as Revolution. "It's several generations ahead of Duraspine," Mr. Cowan said, noting that Duraspine was produced in the early 2000s. Washington Field was outfitted with its current turf surface in 2015. FieldTurf released a statement to the media denying the allegations of the NJ Advance Media report. In a statement on its website, the company said, "The idea that we kept it quiet or covered it up is simply not accurate. We sued our fiber supplier, publicly declaring what we believed the defect to be and stating which types of customers we expected to be impacted." The company also claims that 96 percent of its Duraspine fields in New Jersey have made it through their warranty period and beyond. Several municipalities and school districts are reported to be filing a class action lawsuit against FieldTurf. On Dec. 7, the New Jersey School Boards Association announced, via a statement on its website, that it would be assisting boards of education in exploring legal action against FieldTurf. "The news reports should anger anyone concerned about corporate responsibility, the health of students and the preservation of limited resources," NJSBA Executive Director Lawrence S. Feinsod stated. "They allege fraud and deception that bilked taxpayers out of millions of dollars." Mr. Sceurman said he was confident that Bloomfield would get several more years of use out of the turf fields. However, he said that the township would be following the continuing news coverage and the ongoing class action lawsuit. If there was an opportunity for the township to recoup some of the money it had spent on installing the Duraspine fields, he said that the township would look into taking advantage of it. "No matter what kind of turf you have, you can't expect it to last forever," he said. FLOWERS FOODS: Settles North Carolina Class Action for $9-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- On December 9, 2016, Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, reached an agreement to settle Rehberg et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, a class action lawsuit that was filed in March 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division). The settlement provides for payment of $9.0 million, comprised of $5.2 million in settlement funds and $3.8 million in attorneys' fees. The settlement also contains certain non-economic terms that are intended to strengthen and enhance the independent contractor model, which remains in place. This agreement, which covers approximately 270 distributor territories, is subject to court approval. About Flowers Foods, Inc. Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE:FLO) is a producer and marketer of bakery products. The Company operates in two segments: direct- store-delivery segment (DSD Segment) and warehouse delivery segment (Warehouse Segment). The DSD segment's production plant locations include Birmingham, Alabama; Opelika, Alabama; Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Goldsboro, North Carolina; Jamestown, North Carolina, and Oxford, Pennsylvania. The Warehouse Segment's production plant locations include Montgomery, Alabama; Texarkana, Arkansas; London, Kentucky; Tucker, Georgia; Cedar Rapids, Iowa (mix plant); Cleveland, Tennessee, and Crossville, Tennessee. The Company's DSD Segment operates approximately 40 bakeries that market a range of bakery foods, including breads, buns, rolls, tortillas and snack cakes. The Warehouse Segment produces frozen bread and rolls, and snack cakes. The Warehouse Segment's Company-owned brands include Mrs. Freshley's, European Bakers and Broad Street Bakery. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Smith Seeks to Certify Health Aides Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as DEANGELA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00807-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the case as a collective action for unpaid wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A conditional class is defined as: "all current and former Home Health Aides or other job titles performing similar job duties employed by Generations Healthcare Services, LLC and/or Generations Too, LLC at any time since August 19, 2013, who worked over 40 hours per week and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek". The Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order: 1. approving the Court-authorized notice and consent to sue form; 2. compelling Defendants to produce within 14 days of the Order granting the motion, the full name, all known addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class members; 3. permitting Plaintiff's Counsel to send within 14 days of receipt of the Class list from Defendants, the Court- authorized notice and consent to sue form via US Mail and electronic mail to putative class members; 4. requiring Defendants to post a copy of the Court-authorized notice in its facility; 5. allowing 90 days for putative Class members to return their consent to sue form to Plaintiff's counsel for filing with the Court; and 6. appointing the undersigned counsel, Johnson Becker, PLLC, and Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A. as counsel for members of the putative class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zVkY7IO5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: William F. Cash III, Esq. Brandon L. Bogle, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, PA 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435 7059 E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com bbogle@levinlaw.com - and - Jacob R. Ruseh, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: jrusch@jonhsonbecker.com mnephew@jonhsonbecker.com GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Gold" Suit -------------------------------------- John E. Steele granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, rejecting the plaintiff's amended complaint in the case captioned BERNARD DAVID GOLD, Plaintiff, v. GEO GROUP INC., Operator of GEO, MIKE CARROLL, Secretary DCF, GEORGE ZOLEY, GEO Group Inc., KRISTIN KANNER, Director SVP, DONALD SAWYER, Dr., Facility Director FCCC, CHRIS CATRON, Security Director FCCC, WILLIAM PRICE, Health Administrator FCCC, BRIAN MASONY, DCF Attorney FCCC, and REBECCA JACKSON, Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-73-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.). Bernard David Gold, proceeding pro se, is a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida. On January 14, 2016, Gold and 18 other residents and former residents of the FCCC filed a putative class action complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Florida statutes governing the civil commitment of sexually violent predators and raising a litany of additional individual-specific claims regarding the residents' treatment at the FCCC. The Court denied class certification and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. However, each individual plaintiff was permitted to file his own separate amended complaint. Gold filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2016. As relief, Gold requested that "substantial changes be made to Florida's sex offender civil commitment scheme," and sought two million dollars in punitive and compensatory damages. Three motions were filed seeking dismissal of Gold's amended complaint: (1) the motion to dismiss filed on August 12, 2016 by Chris Catron, Rebecca Jackson, Brian Masony, William Price, and Donald Sawyer; (2) the motion to dismiss filed on August 12, 2016 by Mike Carroll and Kristin Kanner; and (3) the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on September 14, 2016 by GEO Group, Inc. and George Zoley. All three motions to dismiss generally asserted that Gold's amended complaint contains vague, confusing allegations that simply do not make sense, preventing any defendant from properly addressing the allegations raised against them. The motions also urged that the amended complaint should be dismissed because it failed to comply with the Court's earlier order to amend. Carroll and Kanner further argued that, to the extent the Court considers the claims in the amended complaint on their merits, they are entitled to qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Carroll and Kanner also argued that they are entitled to dismissal of the claims against them because the lawsuit is based solely upon their supervisory roles, and respondeat superior liability is not addressable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Judge Steele found that, as argued by the defendants, Gold's failure to describe in sufficient detail the unconstitutional actions taken by the individual defendants makes it impossible for these defendants to meaningfully reply to, or otherwise defend against, the allegations against them. Judge Steele also found that despite clear instructions regarding his obligation to submit a cogent, decipherable complaint, Gold merely cut and pasted portions of the prior class-action complaint to the amended complaint without complying with the order to amend and without explaining exactly how each named defendant is alleged to have violated his constitutional rights. Judge Steele also found that the allegations appeared to be based upon findings by the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota in the case captioned Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015), that portions of the Minnesota statutes governing sexually violent predators (Minnesota SVP statutes) are facially unconstitutional. Gold appeared to believe that the Florida SVP statutes are either identical to, or similar enough to, the Minnesota SVP statutes that the Minnesota court's analysis applies equally to the Florida SVP statutes. Judge Steele, however, held that this assumption is incorrect. The judge, therefore, dismissed the following allegations regarding the facial unconsitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: -- any claims based upon allegations that the probable cause hearings as described in the Florida SVP statutes are unconstitutional (because they are conducted ex parte and without the benefit of counsel); -- any claims based upon allegations that the Florida SVP statutes are unconstitutional because they do not provide for period assessments of a detainee's mental condition or a "judicial by-pass mechanism"; -- any claims predicated upon the alleged facial unconstitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes as they relate to release criteria; -- any claims challenging the facial constitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes as they relate to the detainees' burden of proof; and -- any claims challenging the facial constitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes as they relate to the defendants' requirement to take affirmative action on behalf of individuals who no longer satisfy the criteria for continued commitment. Judge Steele likewise dismissed Gold's equal protection claim and First Amendment access claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because all claims were dismissed, Judge Steele no longer addressed Carroll's and Kanner's arguments regarding qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and respondeat superior liability. A full-text copy of Judge Steele's December 2, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/pEyoLW from Leagle.com. GEO Group Inc., George Zoley, Donald Sawyer, Chris Catron, William Price, Brian Masony, Rebecca Jackson are represented by: Gregory A. Kummerlen, Esq. WIEDERHOLD, MOSES, KUMMERLEN & WARONICKI, PA 340 Columbia Dr., Suite 111 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Tel: (561)615-6775 Fax: (561)615-7225 Mike Carroll, Kristin Kanner are represented by: Katelyn Brooke Wright, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GEORGIA: Reaches Milestone in Child Protection Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Georgia officials have entered an agreement that could provide a way out of a decade-old court order that has cost the state millions to revamp its child protection system. The deal marks a milestone in a class-action lawsuit filed when some said the state's system for abused and neglected children was in shambles, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. That 2002 case focused on foster children in Fulton and DeKalb counties, where caseloads were through the roof and many children lived in dirty, overcrowded shelters that exposed them to violence, sexual assault and drugs. State child protection officials in 2005 agreed to a formidable set of court-ordered mandates and monitoring. This latest agreement, approved this month by a federal judge in Atlanta, acknowledged the state's improvement and the system's increasing stability. The case is known as the Kenny A. lawsuit. "The fact that we are preparing to exit Kenny A. is a testament to the hard work of our staff" and the support of state leaders, said Bobby Cagle, who took the reins of the state Division of Family and Children Services in 2014. "The key thing is that we will be able to control our own destiny as an agency." However, Mr. Cagle acknowledged that two to four years may pass before the state is free of court oversight. The state must do more work to reduce caseloads, stabilize a front-line staff plagued by high turnover, and phase out the use of hotels to house foster children. Once released, the state can then direct certain funding that had been spent on the lawsuit to better the lives of foster children across the state, he said. The new agreement comes at a time of increasing challenges for the state child protection system, which has seen a significant increase in the number of children entering foster care. The number of foster children has risen from 7,600 in 2013 to 13,266 in October of this year. That's a 75 percent increase that officials attribute in part to a new centralized call-in system. Some advocates also point to the increasing abuse of prescription drugs, especially opioids, which lead some addicted parents to neglect their children. The explosive rise in foster children has contributed to a severe shortage of foster homes. The state has already made strides in reducing caseloads, improving response times to allegations of abuse, and ensuring that foster kids are kept healthier and safer, said Ira Lustbader of Children's Rights, a New York-based group that has brought similar lawsuits across the country. The shelters in Fulton and DeKalb were shut down in 2003. The new agreement modifies several of the 31 performance measures set for the agency in 2005, some of which have become outdated and others that proved too difficult to meet and maintain. Over the years, the state has been unable to shake itself free from the court mandate, and has spent some $12 million on legal fees associated with the case, Cagle said. Mr. Lustbader said he is confident that the state, once released from the court agreement, will not revert to its troubled ways. He said the agreement will put in place an infrastructure that will sustain it. State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur, said she believes the state has made enough progress to where it can move toward exiting the court order. She wants to see some of the money spent on tracking, experts and lawyers used to help children in the system. GLOBAL SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in Hofer" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as JOSEPH HOFER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL SERVICE GROUP LLC and DOE DEFENDANT 1, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11391 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. Joseph Hofer asks the Court to certify a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case as a class action for the following classes of similarly-situated persons: "all persons whose cell phone, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, GSG called using an unattended message with respect to the alleged debt of another". Excluded is any person who provided his number to either defendant. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Plaintiff Joseph Hofer as class representative, and his attorneys as class counsel. Global Service Group used an automatic telephone dialing system to make repeated, prerecorded-voice debt collection calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and others without their prior express consent. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and implementing regulations and FCC orders (collectively, TCPA), prohibit any person or entity from "mak[ing] any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service[.]" The statute provides for injunctive relief and minimum damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled where the statute was "willfully or knowingly" violated. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SXoLK0Zy The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729 5288 Facsimile: (312) 729 5289 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Robert T. Healey, Esq. HEALEY LAW, LLC 640 Cepi, Suite A Chesterfield, MO 63005 Telephone: (314) 401 3261 Facsimile: (636) 590 2882 E-mail: bob@healeylawllc.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Rate Rigging Class Action For $77.3 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nate Raymond at Financial Review reports that Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay US$56.5 million ($77.3 million) to resolve a U.S. class action lawsuit accusing it and other banks of rigging an interest rate benchmark used in the US$553 trillion derivatives market. The proposed settlement was disclosed in papers filed in federal court in Manhattan on December 16. It came after seven other banks agreed in May to pay a combined US$324 million to resolve the litigation. As part of the deal, Goldman has also agreed to provide lawyers for the plaintiffs evidence including transaction data, documents and witness interviews, which could be used in litigations against the remaining banks, the court papers said. Neither a spokesman for Goldman Sachs nor a lawyer for the plaintiffs immediately responded to a request for comment late on Friday. The case is one of many pending in Manhattan federal court accusing banks of conspiring to rig rate benchmarks, securities prices or commodities prices. In the lawsuit, several pension funds and municipalities accused 14 banks, including those that settled, of conspiring to rig the "ISDAfix" benchmark for their own gain from at least 2009 to 2012. Companies and investors use ISDAfix to price swaps transactions, commercial real estate mortgages and structured debt securities. The lawsuit accused the banks of executing rapid trades before the rate was set each day. It said the banks also caused UK brokerage ICAP to delay trades until they moved ISDAfix where they wanted, and post rates that did not reflect market activity. U.S. and European regulators have also examined whether ISDAfix was set properly. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has secured settlements of US$115 million with Barclays in May 2015 and US$250 million with Citigroup in May 2016. To date in the class action, seven other banks have settled, including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank. The remaining defendants are BNP Paribas, HSBC Holdings, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Holdings, UBS, Wells Fargo & Co and ICAP, lawyers for the plaintiffs said. HAL HAYS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Duarte" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Duarte and Able Galicia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hal Hays Construction, Inc., Heritage Transportation, Inc. and Doe 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC643928 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other current and former truck driver employees for all hours worked and off-the-clock work. Hal Hays Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction company located at 4181 Latham St, Riverside, CA 92501. Heritage Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a freight shipping and trucking company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387-3400 Facsimile: (213)387-7872 E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com HARTFORD, IN: Judge Weighs in on Sex Offender Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRIAN VALENTI, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD CITY, INDIANA, Defendant, Cause No. 1:15-CV-63-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The judge also granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Brian Valenti, was convicted in California in 1993 of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 14, and was therefore required to register as a sex offender under Indiana law. Shortly after he moved to Hartford City in 2014, a member of the police department informed Valenti about the Hartford City Ordinance 2008-01, titled "Regulation of Sex Offenders," as amended by Ordinance 2015-10. Valenti on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sued the City of Hartford City, Indiana. Valenti asserted that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violates the Indiana Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto punishment. For the due process challenge, Judge Springman has certified a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The class includes all persons who currently, or will in the future, live in, work in, or visit Hartford City, Indiana, and who are, or will be, sex offenders as defined in Amended Ordinance 2008-01. The relief sought for the class was injunctive and declaratory. Valenti also sought damages on his own behalf. Valenti moved for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability. The City responded by filing a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Springman found that the effects of the Ordinance "are so punitive in nature as to constitute a criminal penalty." The judge found that the Ordinance imposes substantial affirmative restraints that are historically considered punishment and triggered by a past criminal conviction, and does so in a manner that is excessive in relation to the Ordinance's stated purpose. The judge found that the Ordinance violates the Indiana Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws because it imposes burdens that have the effect of inflicting greater punishment on Valenti than what could have been imposed in 1988 when he committed the crime. Judge Springman thus held that Valenti is entitled to a judgment that applying the Ordinance to him violates Indiana's ex post facto laws. Judge Springman also found that the Ordinance does not provide minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement's determination of what kind of circumstances would suggest that a person's purpose is to satisfy an unlawful sexual desire. The judge found that the Ordinance does not sufficiently distinguish between innocent conduct and conduct threatening harm and that it remains ambiguous what kind of circumstances would suggest to a reasonable person that the reason a person is loitering or circulating around a place is to accomplish one of the prohibited purposes. Judge Springman thus concluded that the Ordinance fails to provide adequate guidance and authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Valenti requested that the Court "[p]ermanently enjoin Ordinance 2008-01." Judge Springman agreed insofar as the plaintiff is asking that the City be enjoined from enforcing the Ordinance against him because it would be an ex post facto punishment. The judge, however, does not find a basis for the request if Valenti is asking that the Ordinance be permanently enjoined as to all individuals or all class members. A full-text copy of Judge Springmann's December 1, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/IFJkoD from Leagle.com. Brian Valenti, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth J. Falk -- kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana. Hartford City Indiana, Defendant, represented by Eric M. Wilkins -- ewilkins@hsk-law.com -- Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP & Linda A. Polley -- lpolley@hsk-law.com -- Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP. HOEGH AS: BC Court May Hear RoRo Price Fixing Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyle R. Taylor, Esq. -- ktaylor@agmlawyers.com -- of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a court may hear a price fixing action against foreign defendants that never had any business presence in the jurisdiction if the defendants allegedly participated in a conspiracy that impacted the jurisdiction, a British Columbia court recently confirmed. The case was Ewart v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, a class action alleging anticompetitive conduct by operators of roll- on/roll-off ships that are used to transport vehicles. The claim alleged the defendants had conspired to limit competition and increase prices for the worldwide shipment of vehicles. The proposed class consisted of purchasers of new vehicles the defendants shipped. Two of the defendants, Hoegh AS, of Norway, and Hoegh U.S. were based outside Canada and claimed to have no business presence in British Columbia. According to Hoegh, the only shipments it made to Canada were to Nova Scotia. It made no shipments to British Columbia. Hoegh argued that because it had no presence in British Columbia and did not ship any vehicles sold there, the British Columbia court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action against it. The plaintiff responded that the court could hear the action against Hoegh under a British Columbia statute providing that a court may hear a proceeding against a party if there is a "real and substantial connection" between the province and the facts on which the proceeding is based. The court held that it could hear the action against Hoegh because the plaintiff had established a real and substantial connection between the alleged price fixing conspiracy and British Columbia. The plaintiffs generalized pleadings alleged that the defendants, including Hoegh, "allocated sales, territories, customers or markets for supply of Vehicle Carrier Services". The court distinguished the Ontario decision Shah v. LG Chem, Ltd., which held that the plaintiff there failed to establish a real and substantial connection to Ontario because it did not show a "good arguable case" that the foreign defendant did anything that contributed to the alleged conspiracy. In Shah, the foreign defendant had filed affidavit evidence denying participation in any conspiracy, while Hoegh did not submit such evidence. Even though, according to Hoegh, the conspiracy allegations were "thin and general", absent any evidence to the contrary, the court could accept the plaintiff's pleadings as true in order to hear the case against the foreign defendant. The decision demonstrates the risk foreign companies face of having to answer for price fixing claims in Canada even in provinces where the company does not conduct any business. Foreign defendants may have trouble escaping such litigation unless they can show they did not participate in the alleged wrongdoing. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. IMPRIMIS PHARMA: Sobol's Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as DR. LOUIS L. SOBOL, M.D., a Michigan resident, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-14339-NGE- EAS (E.D. Mich.), Dr. Louis L. Sobol moved the Court for entry of an order certifying a class of: "each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages promoting the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services from "ImprimisRX" but not stating on its first page that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future ads and that failure to comply with such a request within 30 days is unlawful." The Plaintiff filed the motion soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this class action. However, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the court to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to represent. As a result, Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable. A copy of the Motion dated Dec. 13 is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=niowlQTU Two days after the filing of the request, the Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds entered an order denying the Plaintiff's placeholder motion. The Court said, "The general rule, which prompted Plaintiff's motion, is that a court must dismiss a class action if the named plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot before class certification. Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 942 (6th Cir. 2016). But an exception to this rule sometimes applies where the defendant's actions mooted the plaintiff's individual claim. Id. at 947. Courts refer to this exception as the "picking off" exception, and the Sixth Circuit has applied it in various circumstances for over thirty years. See id. at 948 (citing Blankenship v. Secretary of HEW, 587 F.2d 329, 331-33 (6th Cir. 1978)). In light of Wilson, the Court cannot identify a reason for granting Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's class action will not become moot if Defendant "picks off" his individual claims, so a placeholder class certification is unnecessary. See Compressor Eng'g Corp. v. Comfort Control Supply Co., 2016 WL 4502467 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2016). A copy of the Order dated Dec. 15 is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Po53EIb The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 - and - Richard Shenkan, Esq. Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (800) 601 0808 Facsimile: (888) 769 1774 INDONESIA: Jakarta Governor Faces Class Action Over Blasphemy ------------------------------------------------------------- Coconuts Jakarta reports that FPI leader Habib Novel filed a civil lawsuit against Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama for Rp 204 million to cover cost of his own private investigation into Ahok's blasphemy case. On Dec. 8, yet another lawsuit against the governor was filed -- a Rp 407 billion class action lawsuit that its initiators assert is being filed on behalf of all Muslims in Indonesia. The lawsuit was filed by Ali Lubis, the vice chairman of the lawyers group Advokat Cinta Tanah Air (ACTA). Another member of ACTA, Gerindra Party politician and lawyer Habiburokhman, filed the other lawsuit against Ahok on behalf of Novel. "The group being represented in this lawsuit is all Indonesian citizens who are Muslims, and the group's representative is Ali Hakim Lubis, an Indonesian Muslim citizen," ACTA lawyer Ali Nurhayati said on Dec. 8 as quoted by Detik. Nurhayati said the lawsuit is based on Article 98 of the Criminal Code which allow victims of crime to demand compensation for their cases. He did not specify what material damages Ahok's alleged blasphemy caused to all Muslims in Indonesia, but Nurhayati did say his team was ready to corroborate the claim with evidence, witnesses and experts. The ACTA lawyer said the lawsuit's key demand was compensation amounting to Rp 470 billion. It also asks that Ahok be forced to purchase advertisements in nine national newspapers to issue an apology to all Muslims (despite the fact that there are already literally thousands of new stories about his numerous past apologies already). "[We are asking that] that the defendant be punished by paying damages to the plaintiff for material losses amounting to Rp 470 billion that would be distributed to all members of the group in the form of Muslim worship facilities that would be coordinated by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) in every major city throughout Indonesia," Nurhayati said. To say that this civil lawsuit is on behalf of all Muslims in Indonesia seems like quite a stretch, considering that less than half of all Indonesians believe Ahok actually committed blasphemy. We're also wondering how exactly Ahok's words could have possibly caused Rp 470 billion worth of material damages to Muslims, unless ACTA is planning to argue that Ahok should be held responsible for the costs of organizing the massive protests against him. Which wouldn't be a very surprising argument for them to make, considering that they also think Ahok should repay Habib Novel for the money the FPI leader spent privately investigating Ahok's alleged crime. JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the Los Angeles city attorney's office has sued four big retailers, alleging deceptive advertising that it says misled shoppers into believing that thousands of products were on sale at a hefty discount. The retailers -- JC Penney, Sears, Kohl's and Macy's -- falsely advertised high "list" or "regular" prices on merchandise that was never actually for sale at that price, according to the lawsuits filed on Dec. 8 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. That led customers to believe that they were getting a better bargain with the "sale" price than they actually were. These tactics -- called false reference pricing -- "play a major role in the companies' overall marketing and business strategies," the L.A. city attorney's office said in a statement. JC Penney said it "doesn't comment on pending litigation." Macy's said it does not "comment on litigation matters." Sears declined to comment, while Kohl's did not respond to a request for comment. California law bans retailers from touting a higher original price unless a product was actually for sale at that price within three months of the ad running. Retailers are also allowed to advertise a higher former price if the ad "exactly and conspicuously" states the date when that price was in effect. "Customers have the right to be told the truth about the prices they're paying -- and to know if a bargain is really a bargain," City Atty. Mike Feuer said in the statement. Online shopping has increasingly given consumers the power to comparison shop from the comfort of their couches. But the rise of Amazon.com has put pressure on traditional retailers to draw eyeballs to their own websites, analysts said. "Brick-and-mortar retailers have a major problem," said Ron Friedman, a retail expert at advisory and accounting firm Marcum in Los Angeles. "It's very difficult for them to compete because the millennials and youth today want to shop online." The kind of pricing tactics described in the lawsuits are endemic to the retail industry today, Mr. Friedman said. Savvy shoppers, however, have become used to looking at the sale price instead of the advertised original price. Even retailers that do sell products at the list price will often start dropping the price within a few weeks, he said. "There is no regular-priced merchandise, especially in stores like Sears or Kohl's or T J Maxx," he said. "The whole category is all about the sale price." The lawsuits, which are seeking civil penalties and injunctions to prohibit such practices, cite several recent examples of false advertising. In February, JC Penney began selling a maternity bathing suit top online for a "sale" price of $31.99, down from an "original" price of $46, according to one suit. That top was later marked down to $21.99 and then $14.99 -- all the while compared to $46. However, it was never for sale at $46, the suit alleges. The highest price was $31.99. High-ticket items were also subject to this kind of inaccurate pricing. Sears, for example, began selling a front-loading Kenmore washer in April, according to one suit. On the first day it appeared online, Sears showed the washer on sale at $999.99, down from $1,179.99 -- even though it was never sold for more than $999.99. "As time went on, the item had a series of different false discounts," the suit alleges. Sears eventually discounted the item down to $649.99 while "falsely advertising a discount from the $1,179.99 false reference price." This is not the first time that retailers have gotten in trouble for false reference pricing schemes. In 2015, class action lawsuits were filed against JC Penney and Kohl's accusing the retailers of tricking customers by inflating original prices. JC Penney eventually settled the suit for $50 million in cash and store credit to customers, and Kohl's agreed to pay $6.15 million. JETSUITE INC: Ward Asks Court to Approve Deal, Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CARLY WARD, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated Plaintiff, v. JETSUITE, INC., an unknown business entity, JETSUITEX, INC., an unknown business entity, SUPERIOR AIR CHARTER, LLC, an unknown business entity, DELUX PUBLIC CHARTER, LLC, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00584-AG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m before the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, for preliminary approval of the parties' joint stipulation of settlement of her California class action claims, and entry of an order conditionally certifying the collective and class action claims for settlement purposes. The Plaintiff said, "The proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Class as a whole, and the procedures proposed by the parties are adequate to ensure the opportunity of class members to participate in, opt out of, or object to the Settlement". A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0SYojF7K The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone Ii, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961 Telephone: (949) 458 9675 Facsimile: (949) 458 9679 E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM ABL@QUINTLAW.COM JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds Investors of Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 13, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Juno Therapeutics, Inc. If you purchased Juno Therapeutics, Inc. shares prior to or between June 4, 2016 and July 7, 2016 and still hold the stock and wish to join this litigation as a potential derivative plaintiff, please contact our office as soon as possible. Federman & Sherwood has extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud. We represent investors throughout the country in shareholder litigation. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com KARIS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gertie" Suit in Ill. Over Value Meal ------------------------------------------------------------- James W. Gertie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Karis Management Company, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's, Case No. 2016CH16080 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 13, 2016), arises out of McDonald's restaurants' misleading advertisement of a food combination designated an "Extra Value Meal" but the combination actually costs more than if each item were bought separately, thus making it no "value" at all, let alone an "extra value." Karis Management Company, Inc. operates more than 10 McDonald's restaurants in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Markoff, Esq. Karl G. Leinberger, Esq. MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC 134 N LaSalle St Ste 1050 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-4162 Facsimile: (312) 674-7272 E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com karl@markleinlaw.com LEONE HALPIN: "Palin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TRACY PALIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LEONE HALPIN, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00369-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all Florida citizens who were the subject of debt collection activity from LEONE HALPIN, LLP in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes who were sent demand letters not returned undelivered by the U.S. Post Office during the one year period prior to filing the original complaint in this action through the date of class certification". In an amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GM8G03PI The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria R. Alaim, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Court, Suite A Fort Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334 3933 Facsimile: (239) 334 7105 E-mail: Maria@vilesandbeckman.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Scroggins Seeks Class & Subclass Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MARILYN R. SCROGGINS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00338-WKW- CSC (M.D. Ala.), Marilyn R. Scroggins moves to certify a class and subclass of persons who received healthcare treatment from a healthcare facility owned or operated by the Defendant. The Class consists of: "all persons in the United States who received any kind of healthcare treatment from any healthcare facility owned or operated by LifePoint Health, while covered by health insurance or while a participant in a group health and welfare plan, and who, within six years preceding the commencement of this action, paid directly or indirectly, or were billed, amounts for covered treatment in excess of their copays and deductibles". Excluded from the Class are (1) the officers, directors, and employees of LifePoint Health, and healthcare facilities owned or operated by LifePoint Health; and (2) all judicial officers of the United States who preside over or hear this case, and all persons related to them as specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5). The Unjust Enrichment Subclass consists of: "all persons in the United States who received any kind of healthcare treatment from any healthcare facility owned or operated by LifePoint Health, while covered by health insurance or while a participant in a group health and welfare plan, and who, within six years preceding the commencement of this action, paid, directly or indirectly, amounts for covered treatment in excess of their copays and deductibles". Excluded from the Class are (1) the officers, directors, and employees of LifePoint Health, and healthcare facilities owned or operated by LifePoint Health; and (2) all judicial officers of the United States who preside over or hear this case, and all persons related to them as specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5). Defendant's billing of its insured patients for amounts exceeding their copays and deductibles violated the provider agreements entered into between the insured patients' health insurers/group health plans and Defendant's hospitals. Defendant has unjustly enriched itself with revenues it was not entitled to keep. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cryneeZJ The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Goodman, Esq. Hillary C. Campbell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 Telephone: (205) 521 8000 Facsimile: (205) 521 8800 E-mail: jgoodman@bradley.com hcampbell@bradley.com MADISON, IL: Dismissal of "Bueker" Claim vs RLI Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SCOTT BUEKER et al., Appellants, v. MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al. (RLI Insurance Company, Appellee), No. 120024 (Ill.), the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgments of the appellate court and the circuit court of Madison County dismissing the plaintiffs' claim against RLI Insurance Company (RLI). Plaintiffs brought this action in their own interest and on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated persons to recover damages resulting from an alleged scheme to inflate the interest rate delinquent property taxpayers in Madison County, Illinois, were compelled to pay to those who purchased delinquent taxpayer debt. The alleged conspiracy scheme was perpetrated by the former Madison County Treasurer and Collector, Fred Bathon, who purportedly agreed with certain defendants to manipulate the delinquent tax purchasing system. The plaintiffs brought suit against those involved in the scheme, as well as Madison County. The plaintiffs also brought suit directly against the defendant, RLI, the entity acting as surety on Bathon's statutory public official bond required as the Madison County Treasurer and Collector. RLI moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against it pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. RLI argued that the plaintiffs are not the proper claimants under the terms of the public official bond or under the statutes that require its procurement. The circuit court granted RLI's motion to dismiss with prejudice, upon determining that the plaintiffs were not proper parties to seek redress directly against the public official bond. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Illinois stated that the proper claimant on a statutory public official bond is the named obligee, unless the legislature has expressed in the statutory language its intent to allow others to sue directly on the bond. The Court further stated that Section 3-10003 of the Counties Code and section 19-40 of the Property Tax Code require the covered public official to be the named principal and "the People of the State of Illinois" to be the named obligee. The Court found nothing, either expressly or by implication, in section 3-10003 of the Counties Code or section 19-40 of the Property Tax Code indicating a legislative intent that private citizens may sue for damages on the public official bond running only to "the People of the State of Illinois" as obligee. Accordingly, the Court held that, under the plain language of section 3-10003 of the Counties Code and section 19-40 of the Property Tax Code, the plaintiffs are not proper claimants against the statutory public official bond required for county collectors and treasurers. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 1, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/9WRFIV from Leagle.com. MANALAPAN, FL: Dismissal of "Navellier" Suit Partly Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and vacated, in part, the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned LOUIS NAVELLIER, WENDY NAVELLIER, individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, TOWN OF MANALAPAN, a Florida township, Defendants- Appellees, No. 16-11994 (11th Cir.). Louis and Wendy Navellier filed a civil-rights suit in federal district court against the State of Florida and the Town of Manalapan, seeking a refund of the $232,000 they paid under protest to satisfy a judgment the Town obtained against them and to avoid losing their home. The Navelliers' home was located on a 1.2-acre parcel of land in Manalapan and had been claimed by the Navelliers as a homestead. The Navelliers also sought a declaratory judgment that Florida's homestead exemption is unconstitutional because it treats municipal homeowners who claim homestead protection for homes located on parcels of land larger than a half-acre unequally, and to prospectively enjoin the defendants from enforcing judgments against the homestead property of such municipal homeowners. The plaintiffs styled their suit as a class action, brought on behalf of all similarly-situated Florida municipal homeowners who have claimed a homestead exemption on properties larger than a half-acre, and they sought to be certified as the lead plaintiffs. The district court found that the Navelliers lacked standing and dismissed the claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The court alternatively found that the complaint was subject to dismissal on the merits for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Navelliers appealed, challenging both the district court's standing and merits determinations. After careful review, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the Navelliers lacked standing to pursue their claims against the State of Florida and their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against both defendants, the State and the Town, and affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of those claims. The Eleventh Circuit concluded, however, that the Navelliers had standing to pursue their claim for damages against the Town, though the appellate court agreed that the complaint failed to state a claim on the merits. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal without prejudice of the Navelliers' damages claim and remanded for the district court to dismiss that claim with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's December 1, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/yYXaJN from Leagle.com. Laura K. Wendell -- lwendell@wsh-law.com -- Daniel Lawrence Abbott -- dabbott@wsh-law.com -- Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton -- carrol.cherryeaton@myfloridalegal.com -- Trevor Christopher Jones, for Defendant-Appellee. Lyubov Zeldis, Samuel Kornhauser, for Plaintiff-Appellant. MAXIMUS INC: "Harvey" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled as REGIS HARVEY, AMANDA COLLINS, ANDREA MCDONALD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXIMUS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-00161-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. B. Lynn Winmill entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to Certify a class. The Court said, "Plaintiffs' fraud and promissory estoppel claims clearly require a showing of individual reliance, and there are too many unanswered questions in this case to establish a presumption of reliance. For example, did each individual class member rely on the offer letters' language of a career opportunity when accepting employment? And, if not, did the class members rely on an oral promise of career employment? If so, what exactly was said in each individual interview to each class member that could have been a promise, and were these oral promised said in exactly the same way in every interview? Clearly there are fundamental issues of reliance here that Plaintiffs have not provided answers to. Further, in depositions, the named Plaintiffs did not establish that they relied on written or oral representations of career employment in accepting the positions at MAXIMUS. The Court cannot presume reliance on a class-wide basis when there are clear discrepancies and unanswered questions regarding individual reliance for each plaintiff. Discovery is over in this case, and Plaintiffs have not shown that presumed reliance is proper here. Because individual issues of reliance clearly predominate over any common issues, the predominance element of Rule 23(b)(3) is not met. Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a) and the predominance standard of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court need not discuss the remaining elements of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3) and declines to do so. As such, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify class is denied." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s5DcpGfY MCBURNEY CONCRETE: "Paz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan A. Paz and Alejandro Zelaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McBurney Concrete Construction, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC643762 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), seeks to recovery of overtime, minimum and premium wages and waiting time penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. McBurney Concrete Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction company located at 501 W Glenoaks Blvd, Glendale, CA 91202. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387-3400 Facsimile: (213)387-7872 E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com MCDONALD'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that a Des Plaines man has brought a consumer fraud class action against a suburban Chicago McDonald's franchisee, alleging the restaurant group should be made to pay for allegedly false advertising on its menu, as the group's pricing of its two cheeseburger "Extra Value Meal" causes customers to pay 41 cents more than they would if they just ordered their two burgers, fries and drink separately. On Dec. 13, plaintiff James Gertie filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against McDonald's and local franchise business Karis Management Company. According to the lawsuit, the Des Plaines-based Karis group owns and operates "more than 10" Chicago area McDonald's restaurants, including at least five in Des Plaines and Niles. Gertie is represented in the action by attorneys Paul F. Markoff - - paul@markleinlaw.com -- and Karl G. Leinberger -- karl@markleinlaw.com -- of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of Chicago. According to the complaint, Gertie purchased a Two Cheeseburger Meal from at least five of Karis' McDonald's restaurants in Des Plaines and Niles from Oct. 14 to Nov. 13. Each time, the lawsuit said, Gertie was charged $5.90 for the meal. However, the lawsuit said, posted menu prices indicated the restaurants would have sold Gertie and other customers two cheeseburgers for $2.50, a medium order of French fries for $1.99 and a medium soft drink for $1 -- a total of $5.49. Yet, the lawsuit said, the Two Cheeseburger Meal posted on the menu for $5.90 was advertised as a "Extra Value Meal," despite the customer being charged more for the bundled meal, rather than the a la carte order. "Defendant, the operator of several McDonald's restaurants, advertised for sale a food combination designated as an 'Extra Value Meal' but the combination actually costs more than if each item were bought separately, thus making it no 'value' at all, let alone an 'extra value,'" the lawsuit said. Gertie and his lawyers have asked the court to expand their lawsuit to a class action, to potentially include hundreds of others who may have purchased the cheeseburger meals at Karis' locations, including the restaurants in Des Plaines and Niles and others in Wheeling, Antioch, Grayslake and Volo. The lawsuit asks the court to award plaintiffs the amount they were overcharged, as well as asking the defendants to repay all overcharges. The lawsuit further requests punitive damages and attorney's fees. MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Verma Seeks Certification of 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled RAJESH VERMA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a/ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL JACKSONVILLE; NPAS, INC., a Tennessee corporation; and MEDICREDIT, INC., a Missouri corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00427-HLA-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes of similarly situated persons defined as follows: Medicredit Class: "i. all persons residing in the territorial United States, excluding the Court and its staff; ii. who was the subscriber of a cellular telephone number; iii. To which Medicredit placed a telephone call using the Noble Dialing System; and iv. for which Medicredit's records reflect a DNK code in the period starting July 14, 2015 and through the date of certification"; NPAS Class: "i. all persons residing in the territorial United States, excluding the Court and its staff; ii. who was the subscriber of a cellular telephone number; iii. to which NPAS placed a telephone call using the Genesys Dialing System; and iv. For Which NPAS's records reflect a Smart Code of either 11, 13, 15, 42, 584, or 770 in the period starting April 11, 2012 and through the date of certification". According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a widespread practice of placing robocalls to third parties who did not owe the debts that they were trying to collect, and who therefore did not consent to receive the robocalls. Defendants' records identify hundreds of thousands of these calls. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xj27aQoF The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763 8660 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - Eric W. Kem, Esq. THE KEM LAW FIRM, P.A. 2233 N.W. 41st Street, Suite 700-H Gainesville, FL 32606 Telephone: (352) 275 7151 E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com MISHAWAKA HOUSING: Court Narrows Claims in "Wright" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. granted in part and denied, in part, Mishawaka Housing Authority's (MHA) motion to dismiss and granted MHA's motion to strike the class allegations in the case captioned MARY BETH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MISHAWAKA HOUSING AUTHORITY and COLLEEN OLUND, Defendant, Cause No. 3:15-cv-532 RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind.). The plaintiff, Mary Beth Wright, alleged that the MHA and its former director, Colleen Olund, discriminated against her on the basis of her handicap when it removed and destroyed her wheelchair, furniture, and other property while she was hospitalized. She also argued that she represents a class of similarly situated persons. Ms. Wright based her claims of discrimination on three anti-discrimination statutes: the Federal Housing Act Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. She also argued that MHA violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and Indiana conversion and constitutional law. Both defendants moved to dismiss the action and to strike the class allegations. Ms. Wright's first argument is that MHA violated her rights under the Fair Housing Act Amendments when it discriminated against her on account of her disability. Ms. Wright's second count is that MHA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which "provide[s] a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." Last, Ms. Wright argued that MHA violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which makes it illegal for an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . ., solely by reason of her or his disability, [to] be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ." Judge Miller found that Ms. Wright did not state a plausible claim of intentional discrimination, as none of the facts alleged suggest that MHA destroyed Ms. Wright's property precisely because she's disabled. The judge found that instead, the facts suggest only that it did so because she didn't maintain the apartment in a way that allowed them to treat the bedbug problem. Judge Miller also found that Ms. Wright stated no plausible claim based on disparate impact, as Ms. Wright did not allege any particular practice of MHA or any statistical disparity indicating that MHA acted in a way that disparately impacted the disabled. Judge Miller, however, found that Ms. Wright stated plausible claims that MHA failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the anti-discrimination statutes. Because Ms. Wright pleaded prima facie claims under the FHAA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act based on MHA's alleged lack of reasonable accommodation, Judge Miller denied MHA's motion to dismiss with respect to her first three claims. Ms. Wright's fourth and sixth claims argued that MHA and Ms. Olund deprived her of due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Miller found that because Ms. Wright did not allege a plausible claim based on discriminatory intent, she likewise didn't allege a plausible Equal Protection Clause claim. The judge also found that Ms. Wright did not articulate a plausible account of how she was denied due process, considering that she received notice of her upcoming eviction and her obligation to remove her personal property in time, and that the notice advised her that she had access to MHA's grievance procedures and the courts in order to defend against the eviction. Ms. Wright's fourth and sixth claims were thus dismissed. Because Ms. Wright stated a plausible claim for relief under the anti-discrimination statutes, Judge Miller held that the court has supplemental jurisdiction to rule on her claims under Indiana law, whereby "[T]he Indiana Due Course of Law requirement of Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution is analogous to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." However, the judge explained that Ms. Wright did not allege a plausible due process claim under the United States Constitution, and so she also did not allege a plausible due course claim under the Indiana Constitution. As to Ms. Wright's tortious conversion claim, Judge Miller pointed out that such claim must plausibly allege that MHA "knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over" Ms. Wright's property. The judge found that it is enough that Ms. Wright alleged facts indicating that MHA intended to perform the acts that deprived her of her right to the property, even if she did not allege that MHA knew the deprivation to be unauthorized. The judge concluded that she has met this burden. Judge Miller thus denied MHA's motion to dismiss as it applies to Ms. Wright's fifth claim and granted it as it applies to Ms. Wright's seventh claim. MHA also moved to strike all allegations regarding Ms. Wright's representation of a purported class of absent persons pursuant to Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D). Judge Miller found that Ms. Wright did not demonstrate that her individual claim is "typical" of that of any proposed class. The jduge explained that the kinds of accommodations requested by class members will vary a great deal, as the plaintiffs might have different handicaps and request different accommodations for them. Thus, the judge held that whether a proposed accommodation is "reasonable" will vary a great deal from case to case. Judge Miller concluded that Ms. Wright did not show common questions of law or fact or that her case is typical for the class. The judge thus granted MHA's motion to strike class allegations. In summary, Judge Miller granted MHA's motion to dismiss in part as to Ms. Wright's fourth, sixth, and seventh claims, denied the motion in part as to Ms. Wright's first, second, third, and fifth claims, and granted MHA's motion to strike the class allegations A full-text copy of Judge Miller's December 1, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/xdEAsn from Leagle.com. Mary Beth Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Kent Hull, Hull Law Firm. Mishawaka Housing Authority, Colleen Olund, Defendants, represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC, pro hac vice, Ronald D. Balfour -- rbalfour@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC & Steven P. Lammers -- slammers@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC. MYER: Judge Tosses Shareholder Litigator's Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Eli Greenblat, writing for The Australian, reports that one-man shareholder litigator Mark Elliott has lost his bid to wage a court battle against department store owner Myer, after the Supreme Court found Mr. Elliott used the court for an "illegitimate" purpose which was an abuse of process. Going further, the court found Mr Elliott's statements of evidence "repeated and rehearsed". It marks the second time in recent years that Mr Elliott's interesting business model -- of buying shares in a swath of publicly listed companies and then launching class actions if a profit downgrade sparks a collapse in the share price -- has come under fire from a judge. A Supreme Court judge in 2014 argued Mr Elliott, a former partner with Minter Ellison, had likely set up his Melbourne City Investments (MCI) vehicle for the purpose of launching class action law suits to generate legal fees for himself. It was the turn of Justice Michael Sifris of the Supreme Court who handed down his judgment on MCI's court case against Myer, relating to the retailer's profit downgrade in 2015, which sent shares in the company plummeting. Justice Sifris has ordered a permanent stay against the proceedings brought by Mr Elliott's MCI and labelled the case an abuse of process. "Why then has MCI commenced this proceeding?," Mr Sifris said in his 37 page ruling on Dec. 9. "If the predominant purpose is to generate income for Elliott and or his associates it is an abuse of the process. If however, the income, such as it may be, simply flows from the vindication of legal rights, being, the predominant purpose of the proceeding, it is not an abuse of the process." But Justice Sifris found the former to be true. "In my opinion the court's process has been engaged for an illegitimate or collateral purpose and accordingly the proceedings is an abuse of process. The predominant purpose of this proceeding is to generate, not legal fees, but income or revenue for interests associated with Elliott." MCI had alleged losses and damage resulting from a statement made in the context of Myer's full-year 2014 results, and a public forecast given by former Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes at the company's full-year results presentation on September 11, 2014. Myer shares slumped in March 2015 after the company was forced to admit it would not meet its full-year profit consensus forecasts. Mr Elliott, a one-time senior executive at Computershare, set up MCI as a vehicle to launch shareholder class actions against listed companies. He quickly began scooping up small parcels of shares in more than 145 publicly-listed companies, sometimes investing less than $700 in each company. He has particularly focused on companies that have issued profit downgrades which have then led to substantial falls in stock prices. In 2013 MCI began separate shareholder class actions against Treasury Wine, Leighton and WorleyParsons, claiming failure to properly disclose price-sensitive information related to profit downgrades as well as misleading or deceptive conduct. In 2014 Mr Elliott suffered a setback when the Supreme Court of Victoria fired a broadside at his business model, arguing he had likely set up his Melbourne City Investments vehicle for the purpose of launching class action law suits to generate legal fees for himself. The comments were made in relation to Mr Elliott's actions against Treasury and Leighton who banded together to have their cases thrown out of court, citing abuse of process. NARCONON: Judge Wu Denied Bid to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Connie L. Rana, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Narconon of Northern California, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02182-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. George H. Wu entered an order denying without prejudice these class and subclasses: The Class: "all individuals in the United States who paid for drug rehabilitation services at Narconon Centers owned or operated by NFS during the Class Period and (1) who did not sign an admission agreement, or (2) whose admission agreement does not contain a mandatory arbitration clause". The California Subclass: "all individuals in the United States who paid for drug rehabilitation services at Narconon Centers owned or operated by NFS within the State of California during the Class Period and (1) who did not sign an admission agreement, or (2) whose admission agreement does not contain a mandatory arbitration clause"' and The Nevada/Texas/Colorado Subclass: "all individuals who paid for drug rehabilitation services at Narconon Centers owned or operated by NFS with the states of Nevada, Texas, and Colorado during the Class Period and (1) who did not sign an admission agreement, or (2) whose admission agreement does not contain a mandatory arbitration clause". The Court said, "The class definitions as proposed in the [Plaintiffs'] reply brief continues to be overbroad and does not address all of Defendants' concerns, particularly that satisfied class members suffered no damages. The revised language proposed by Plaintiffs necessarily sweeps in individuals who paid for the drug rehabilitation services but were not exposed to any misrepresentations or omissions of material facts regarding the success rate or the secular nature of the Program". The Court held that Plaintiffs' belated revisions of their class definitions in their moving and reply was procedurally improper because Defendants had no opportunity to fully respond to the revised definitions. This impropriety is fatal to the Motion to Certify. The Court will not consider revised class definitions absent an amended complaint, or at a minimum a new motion for class certification with delineated class definitions that do not morph during the briefing process. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5BdkBxr3 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gretchen M. Wilson, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP 936 N 34th St. Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 E-mail: info@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: William H. Forman, Esq. Peggy Dayton, Esq. SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS Telephone: (213) 613 4682 Facsimile: (213) 613 4656 E-mail: wforman@scheperkim.com NATIONAL SERVICE: "Meyer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SERVICE BUREAU INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 05264-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 1, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., before the Hon. R. Gary Klausner, for an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class Certification of: "all persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint." The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=09MK2Y6S The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com NBTY INC: CAF Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Frank Bednarz, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute, reports that the Center for Class Action Fairness filed a motion to intervene and seek disgorgement from for-profit "professional objectors" in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., a case dealing with allegedly deceptive marketing practices by makers of health supplements. The Center became involved in the case in 2014 when it objected to a class action settlement that would have provided attorneys $4.5 million but less than $900,000 to the class. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed and reversed approval of the "selfish" settlement. Thanks to the Center's objection, the parties negotiated a new settlement providing the class with more than $3 million additional recovery. The new settlement was approved August 25, 2016. The new settlement was opposed by three professional objectors -- that is, objectors who threaten to hold up class action settlements unless they are paid to go away. Courts and commentators have criticized professional objectors, who essentially demand blackmail from settling parties. In this case, defendants paid professional objectors to drop their appeals, which they did November 7. The Center opposes professional objectors who provide no benefit to class members, so it filed a motion for CCAF Director Ted Frank to intervene and disgorge the objector blackmail. If the motion is granted, the quid pro quo payments to the three objectors in this case will be disbursed fairly to all class members. Disgorgement will also deter professional objectors nationwide from bringing objections solely for their own personal profit with no benefit to the class. With fewer poorly-argued and unmeritorious objections brought by self-interested professionals, courts may better evaluate arguments by good-faith objectors -- like the Center for Class Action Fairness. NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALFREDO MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.NELSON, WATSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC; CBE GROUP; and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Michael Hammer certified a settlement class defined as: "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC or CBE Group mailed a written communication during the period beginning August 3, 2014, and ending August 3, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that certain alpha numeric information associated with the consumer's debt was visible from the outside of the envelope". The Court: 1. defines the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from Defendants' collection letters, which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that certain alpha numeric information associated with the consumer's debt was visible from the outside of the envelope; 2. appoints Plaintiff as the Class Representative; 3. appoints Plaintiffs' counsel, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip D. Stern, and Yongmoon Kim as Class Counsel; and 4. appoints Dahi Administration as the Settlement Administrator to administer notice to the class and the settlement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dNTxHv8f NEW ALLIANCE: Consumer Can't Bring TCPA Class Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Allan Enriquez, writing for insideARM, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in a non-precedential opinion that a consumer, in the circumstances of this case, did not have standing to bring putative class action claims after entry of judgment in his favor on his individual claims pursuant to the defendants' offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A consumer filed an individual and putative class action alleging that several companies violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act , 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, and New York's General Business Law, Sec. 399-p. The district court dismissed the consumer's putative class action claims for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the entry of judgment in his favor pursuant to an offer of judgment under Rule 68. The consumer appealed. The Second Circuit began its analysis by addressing its prior ruling in Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2015). There, the Second Circuit, contrary to the opinion of other circuits, held that an unaccepted offer of settlement or judgment, on its own, will not moot a plaintiff's claims. However, any individual claims are rendered moot where a judgment has been entered and plaintiff's claims have been satisfied. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Campbell- Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), came to the same conclusion as the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit noted that it had not addressed the issue of whether, in all cases, the rendering moot of a plaintiff's individual claims undermines the plaintiff's standing to pursue claims on behalf of a putative class. In Tanasi, the Second Circuit explicitly left open the question of whether unresolved class action claims can ever provide an independent basis for justiciability. Ultimately, the Court decided not to reach this question here because the consumer did not have any connection to a "live claim of his own" or any cognizable interest in pursuing the class claims. The Second Circuit cited Campbell-Ewald for the rule that Article III limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. The Court then distinguished the effect of a putative and a certified class. The Second Circuit determined that although a certified class may obtain independent status for purposes of standing, where the individual claims of the putative class representative are rendered moot prior to certification, in general, the entire action becomes moot. Consequently, the Court held that because the consumer was the sole individual representative for the putative class, once his claim was no longer live, no plaintiff remained in a position to pursue the class claims. The Court acknowledged that in certain circumstances the rendering of a named plaintiff's individual claim as moot will not remove the basis for the associated class action. However, the Court determined that none of those circumstances applied to the consumer. For example, the Second Circuit examined the relation back doctrine, which occasionally allows a court to review a class certification decision even after a plaintiff's individual claims have been rendered moot. But that line of cases was inapplicable here because there was no class certification decision or any other reason to link the consumer's once-live claim to the now- independent class claims. The Second Circuit then rejected the consumer's argument that his expectation of an incentive reward as representative of the putative class gave him a personal stake in the class litigation. The Court noted that standing requires that a plaintiff allege a concrete injury that creates a legally protected interest in pursuing the litigation. The Court determined that the consumer's interest in a potential incentive award was merely a purely hypothetical possibility of recovery that did not meet the standing requirements, because an incentive reward is not guaranteed but rather solely within the discretion of the district court after a class is certified and recovery occurs. Moreover, in this matter there was never a determination as to whether there might be a cognizable class in this case, as he never moved for class certification. Consequently, the Court held that the consumer did not meet the requirements for standing. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court. NEW ORIENTAL: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of common stock of New Oriental Education between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and/or misleading statements about: (1) New Oriental's college application activities; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about New Oriental Education's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Reuters published an article December 2, 2016 revealing that New Oriental has been accused of engaging in college application fraud. The article states "[e]ight former and current new Oriental employees . . . . told Reuters the firms have engaged in college application fraud, including writing application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts." The same day, Reuters released and update claiming that, due to its earlier report detailing academic fraud allegations at New Oriental, the American International Recruitment Council ("AIRC") "will investigate the company in response to the report" and the AIRC's president-elect called the allegations "highly concerning." On this news, shares of New Oriental fell $6.99 per share from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share on December 2, 2016, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired New Oriental American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental ADRs during the Class Period, you have until February 13, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at -- rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. New Oriental is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China ("PRC"). New Oriental provides private educational services under the New Oriental brand in the PRC. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about New Oriental's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 2, 2016, Reuters published a report detailing allegations of academic fraud at the company. Specifically, Reuters reported that eight former and current New Oriental employees informed Reuters that New Oriental "engaged in college application fraud, including writing application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts." On that same day, Reuters reported that the American International Recruitment Council, which certifies agencies that recruit foreign students on behalf of U.S. colleges, will investigate the company in response to the Reuters report. On this news, shares of the Company fell $6.99 per share or over 14% from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share on December 2, 2016, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Overcharging Suit Belongs to Dist. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PEGGY ZAHN, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC, Appellee (The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Intervenor- Appellant, No. 120526 (Ill.), the Supreme Court of Illinois answered a question of Illinois law that was certified for instruction from the Supreme Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Peggy Zahn, a residential consumer of electric power, filed a class action against the North American Power & Gas, LLC (NAPG) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. NAPG is an alternative retail electric supplier (ARES) within the meaning of section 16-102 of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997, which is part of the Public Utilities Act. Zahn's complaint invoked the district court's diversity jurisdiction and sought damages based on violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. NAPG moved to dismiss Zahn's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court granted that motion. Zahn then appealed to the Seventh Circuit. In the appeal, the Seventh Circuit certified the following question for instruction from the Supreme Court of Illinois: Does the Illinois Commerce Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over a reparation claim, as defined in Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 2011 IL 110166, brought by a residential consumer against an alternative retail electric supplier, as defined by section 16-102 of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997? In assessing whether the district court erred in dismissing Zahn's complaint, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the dispositive threshold issue is whether an Illinois state court would have had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims or whether exclusive jurisdiction over those claims lies, instead, with the Illinois Commerce Commission. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that if the Commerce Commission alone has jurisdiction to hear claims of this kind under Illinois law and such claims are not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Illinois state courts, it necessarily follows that a federal district court sitting in diversity cannot entertain them either. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. The Supreme Court explained that ARESs were not part of the traditional regulatory system established to govern public utilities, and were introduced under the Rate Relief Law as part of an effort to partially deregulate Illinois's electricity market. The Supreme Court pointed out that ARESs are expressly excluded from the definition of "public utility" under the Public Utilities Act and are not "electric utilities" under section 16- 102 of the Rate Relief Law, but are simply "nonutilities licensed to sell retail electricity". The Supreme Court further pointed out that, in contrast to public utilities, an ARES's prices are a matter of contract between the ARES and its customers, and that the prices they are permitted to charge are not established by the Commerce Commission through the conventional rate-making process and do not have to be submitted to the Commerce Commission for approval under the "just and reasonable" standard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the justification for giving the Commerce Commission exclusive original jurisdiction over the disputes involving rates charged by public utilities is absent where the complaint concerns overcharging by an ARES. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 1, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/mDn2Re from Leagle.com. NZK PRODUCTIONS: Ex-Production Assistant Sues Over Meal Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that a former production assistant on ABC's "The Bachelor" has filed a class- action lawsuit alleging that he did not get adequate meal breaks. Connor Eckert, a production assistant from September 2014 to October 2016, alleges that NZK Productions -- the company behind the long-running reality series -- violated California labor laws. The suit alleges that P.A.'s were not afforded 30-minute meal breaks and paid rest periods, and NZK did not provide accurate wage statements. The suit seeks class status on behalf of all of the company's production assistants in California. NZK did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Wage-and-hour suits are not uncommon in the reality TV world, where workers tend to be non-union. In 2009, several networks and reality show producers agreed to a $4 million class action settlement. Fremantle Media, the producer of "American Idol," was subsequently sued on similar grounds, as was 495 Productions, the company behind "Jersey Shore." The Writers Guild of America, West, has long campaigned against producers, accusing them of denying meal breaks to non-union reality show writers. California has some of the strictest labor laws in the country, making it a prime target for plaintiffs' attorneys in other industries as well. ORLEANS PARISH: Deceased Inmate's Family Sues Sheriff ----------------------------------------------------- Christopher Knoll, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman has been sued by the family of 34-year-old Orleans Parish inmate Calvin Thomas (a.k.a Calvin Deal). The family claims Mr. Thomas' death was wrongful and a result of the prison allegedly being understaffed and inhabited by abusive employees. The suit was filed in mid-November, almost a year to the day of Mr. Thomas' Nov. 15, 2015, death. Suffering from sickle-cell anemia and Hepatitis C, the family of Mr. Thomas claims that his mistreatment was compounded by the callous disregard by the prison toward the health of inmates, which they allege was fueled by Sheriff Gusman. Reportedly in the throes of sickle-cell related pain, Mr. Thomas purportedly was transported to University Medical Center where he died three days later. The suit alleges that medication that would have helped Mr. Thomas was denied to him. Mr. Thomas was held at the Orleans Justice Center awaiting trial for charges related to robbery and drugs. At the time of his death, he had been waiting two months for a hearing. During that brief stay, family and friends of Mr. Thomas reported that he was "attacked and stabbed" by another inmate, "choked by a security guard" inside lockup and repeatedly ignored during bouts of illness. Years of reported abuse had earlier resulted in a class-action suit filed against the prison. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report citing Orleans Parish Prison as being infested with abusive guards and teeming with inmate neglect. Three years later, the sheriff was sued for another inmate's death (Jones v. Gusman) that resulted in prisoner health care being addressed at the prison. Adina Marx-Arpadi of the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition told the Louisiana Record that another result of Jones v. Gusman was that the prison was put into "federal receivership" and was overseen by compliance director Gary Maynard, whose duties began this past October. The shift in responsibility, according to Ms. Marx-Arpadi, is very real. "The sheriff may weigh in and give advice," Ms. Marx-Arpadi told the Louisiana Record. "The compliance director answers only to the federal court. The sheriff has virtually no power, and is sheriff primarily in name only." Sheriff Gusman further removed himself from an active role in the prison in 2014 when he agreed to an $83 million contract with Correct Care Solutions (CCS) that was part of reforms suggested by the U.S. Department of Justice report. CCS is a private company created to provide "medical and behavioral health services for . . . state hospitals . . . civil commitment centers, as well as local, state and federal correctional facilities." Ms. Marx-Arpadi said the CCS contract "was very controversial." "It was very expensive and was negotiated behind closed doors, and the IG [inspector general] had some words about it," she said. For its' first year of operations, the CCS contract called for $15 million to provide "basic health care" to OPP, a total the New Orleans City Council found "obscenely expensive" given the skeletal staff CCS was imparting to the prison. "We're paying for nonexistent employees while (CCS) ramps up -- phantom employees," council president Stacy Head told the New Orleans Advocate in a 2014 hearing on the matter. The current lawsuit claims that abuse still exists due to "the belief that (deputies) can violate the rights of persons . . . with impunity, and that such conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion and other employment benefits." Correct Care Solutions is also named in the suit. The Louisiana Record attempted to contact the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office for comment but did not receive a response. PAIN THERAPEUTICS: January 16 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION KB PARTNERS I, LP Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., REMI BARBIER, NADAV FRIEDMANN, and PETER RODDY Defendants. Case No. A-11-CV-1034-SS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF PAIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 27, 2010 AND JUNE 26, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). Excluded from the Class are defendants, officers and directors of Pain Therapeutics, Inc., members of their immediate families, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, that a hearing will be held on December 16, 2016, at 11 a.m., before Honorable Sam Sparks, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, 501 West Fifth Street, Austin, TX 78701, for the purpose of determining, among other things,: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Settling Defendants for $8.5 million should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiff/Class Representative's application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pain Therapeutics common stock between December 27, 2010 and June 26, 2011, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Pain Therapeutics Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 43372, Providence, RI 02940-3372, by email at info@paintherapeuticslitigation.com; by telephone at 1 866-348- 7651; or by visiting the website at www.paintherapeuticslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than January 16, 2017 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than November 25, 2016. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than November 25, 2016. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Tamar Weinrib, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016, taweinrib@pomlaw.com. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL DATED: September 1, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WETERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action lawsuit against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016 inclusive. Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period, are reminded to contact the firm in advance of the December 19, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, Pilgrim's Pride made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company systematically colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the market for broiler chickens; that the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; that Pilgrim's Pride revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct; that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 7, 2016, Pivotal Research downgraded its peer company Tyson Foods, Inc. from "buy" to "sell," due to fears of a class action against Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, and other peers over price collusion in the broiler-chicken market. Allegedly, in 2008, Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, and several other companies conspired by sharing proprietary data and reducing production to support prices. When this news was announced, shares of Pilgrim's Pride fell in value, which caused investors harm. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. PILOT CORP: "Wright" Claims Belong to Dist. Court, 11th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff- Appellee, v. PILOT CORPORATION, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, d.b.a. Pilot Flying J, JAMES A. HASLAM, III, JOHN FREEMAN, Defendants- Appellants, BRIAN MOSHER, MARK HAZELWOOD, Defendants, No. 15-15184 (11th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) does not vest the federal courts with original jurisdiction over state-law claims after the class claims are dismissed. In July 2013, Wright Transportation, Inc., an Alabama corporation that had a fuel-discount contract with Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, d/b/a Pilot Flying J, and the named employees of each (collectively, "Pilot"), brought a federal lawsuit as a class action on behalf of itself and others who had fuel-discount contracts with Pilot. Wright alleged that Pilot and certain Pilot employees systematically shortchanged some trucking companies with whom Pilot had discount agreements by failing to give them the agreed-upon benefits. Wright brought several claims against Pilot under both state and federal law. Wright first filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in July 2013. Although many of the claims were based in state law, Wright alleged it was proper for the court to exercise federal jurisdiction over all of the claims. In January 2014, the District Court granted part of the defendants' motion to dismiss Wright's claims. In this ruling, the District Court also dismissed all of the class claims asserted in the complaint because a rival class-action suit reached a court-approved settlement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Wright and Pilot had acknowledged that the judicial approval of the settlement would "deprive [Wright] of standing to pursue [its] class claims." While the District Court dismissed the state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment brought for the class, those claims survived for Wright individually. Meanwhile, in April 2014, six separate suits were pending against Pilot in five other federal judicial districts around the country. At Pilot's urging, these six other suits were consolidated with Wright's into one multidistrict-litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In July 2015, the MDL court found new information that deprived it of diversity jurisdiction over this case. Yet Pilot urged the MDL court to retain jurisdiction over Wright's suit because Wright originally asserted its claims under CAFA. Without deciding the question of jurisdiction under CAFA, the MDL court remanded the case to the Alabama District Court in September 2015. On remand to the District Court, Wright moved to dismiss its remaining claims without prejudice so that it could refile in Alabama state court. Pilot argued in opposition that the District Court had original jurisdiction under CAFA and, alternatively, should continue to retain supplemental jurisdiction. The District Court dismissed the CAFA argument, finding that CAFA does not vest the federal courts with original jurisdiction over state-law claims after the class claims are dismissed. Pilot argued that the District Court erred in holding it did not have original jurisdiction over Wright's state-law claims under CAFA. Specifically, Pilot argued that CAFA conferred original jurisdiction over all of Wright's claims at the time Wright filed them, such that the jurisdiction could not have divested when the class claims were later dismissed. Pilot asked the Eleventh Circuit to rule that once this 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 like the class settlement in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Wright argued that the District Court's dismissal of the class claims after the settlement in the Eastern District of Arkansas destroyed CAFA jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit, however, noted that settlement occurred after Wright filed its complaint, and Wright advanced no argument that the complaint was frivolous or deficient under CAFA at the time it was filed. The appellate court found that when the post- filing action that did away with the class claims is not an amendment to the complaint, there is no basis for distinguishing cases originally filed in federal court under CAFA from those removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit therefore concluded that CAFA continues to confer original federal jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in the suit. A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 22, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/kKHA26 from Leagle.com. Stephen M. Tunstall, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Mark Christian King -- cking@lightfootlaw.com -- Walter Joseph McCorkle -- jmccorkkle@balch.com -- Stephen D. Brody -- sbrody@omm.com -- Parker D. Kasmer -- pkasmer@sidley.com -- Glenn M. Kurtz -- gkurtz@whitecase.com -- Joshua D. Weedman -- jweedman@whitecase.com -- Gregory Starner -- gstanner@whitecase.com -- Martin G. Durkin, Jr. -- martin.durkin@hklaw.com -- Michael Anthony Grill, Simon Auerbach, Michael P. O'Day -- michael.oday@dlapiper.com -- William Gordon Ball, for Defendant-Appellant. POST HOLDINGS: Settles Egg Antitrust Class Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc., a consumer packaged goods holding company, on Dec. 8 disclosed that it has reached an agreement to settle all class claims (asserted by direct purchasers of shell eggs) against Michael Foods, Inc. in In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, a class action lawsuit filed in 2008 in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Michael Foods will settle all class claims with a $75 million payment. This litigation pertains to a timeframe that predates Post's acquisition of Michael Foods, which was completed in June 2014. "While we remain confident that our conduct has at all times been lawful and entirely appropriate, we believe this settlement is in the best interest of our shareholders, employees, customers and consumers because it effectively eliminates the distraction, expense, and exposure of this complex litigation," said Rob Vitale, President and Chief Executive Officer. Post expects to record a pre-tax charge in the first quarter of its fiscal year 2017 for the settlement of this matter, which will be treated as an adjustment for purposes of calculating Adjusted EBITDA and other non-GAAP measures. Under current law, the settlement is deductible for federal income tax purposes. The terms of the settlement must be formally documented and are subject to approval by the court following notice to all class members. While Post expects the settlement will receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties. This settlement does not affect the action filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of shell eggs (who were unsuccessful in class certification), or dismissed claims by direct purchasers of egg products (which dismissal is being appealed). PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Blue Ash Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BLUE ASH AUTO, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS- APPELLEES, Nos. 104251, 104252 (Ohio Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eight District affirmed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas which denied class action certification on the plaintiffs-appellants' claims against the defendants-appellees. In the consolidated class action case, the appellants, Blue Ash Auto, Inc., Finney Automotive Company, Inc., Russell Westfall and Westfall Auto Sales L.L.C., are independent auto body shops that have performed repairs on vehicles insured under the policies of Progressive. The appellants alleged that Progressive tortiously interferes with their business practices by dictating what services and parts it is willing to pay for when appellants are tasked with repairing a Progressive insured automobile. The appellants also alleged that Progressive dictates the labor rates that it is willing to pay without regard to a particular shop's rates. The appellants alleged that these limitations do not necessarily allow for them to restore an insured's car to its original, pre-loss condition and that the limitations violate both Ohio law and Progressive's own insurance policies. The appellants sought damages for parts and labor expended in excess of Progressive's limitations. The appellants also sought declaratory relief in the form of an order requiring Progressive to indemnify them from any liability arising from their compliance with Progressive's restrictions. Progressive argued that its practices are part of the competitive market for auto repair services in Ohio and that its own "Direct Repair Program" auto body shops are able to repair an insured's vehicle to its pre-loss condition under the same terms offered to the plaintiffs. The trial court denied class certification on both of the appellants' claims for tortious interference and declaratory judgment, finding that the appellants failed to meet their burden under four of the seven requirements set forth in Civ.R. 23(A). The Court of Appeals of Ohio found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusions. The trial court concluded that the appellants cannot maintain their Civ.R. 23(B)(2) declaratory judgment claim because it is merely incidental to their damages claim. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that any indemnification would be premised on an initial decision that the estimate provided by Progressive was inadequate based on the unique facts of each case. The appellate court found that these issues simply cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis with any finality without considering the facts pertinent to a particular instance of negligent repair. Because the appellants' desired declaration would merely lay the foundation for subsequent individualized determinations of liability, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification on appellants Civ.R. 23(B)(2) declaratory judgment claim. The trial court also found that the appellants' proposed class certification of their tortious interference claim did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3). The appellate court agreed with the trial court that an individualized inquiry would be necessary for not just each potential class member, but every separate instance where such class members conducted a repair under the alleged limitations imposed by Progressive, and that the court would have to examine each repair and consider whether the additional services or parts that Progressive allegedly denied to the particular class member were necessary to restore the damaged vehicle in question to its pre-loss condition. The appellate court thus found no abuse of discretion on the part the trial court in holding that any common questions of law or fact in the case fail to predominate over the voluminous individual questions that would need to be resolved. A full-text copy of the Court's December 1, 2016 journal entry and opinion is available at https://is.gd/55fTi8 from Leagle.com. James B. Rosenthal -- jbr@crklaw.com -- Joshua R. Cohen -- jcohen@crklaw.com -- Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400, 700 West St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113; Dennis A. Becker, 526 Wards Corner Road, Suite A, Loveland, Ohio 45140; Erica L. Eversman, Eversman Law Offices, 846 N. Cleveland Massillon Road, Akron, Ohio 44333; Peter D. Traska, Traska Law Firm, L.L.C., 4352 Pearl Road, Suite A, Cleveland, Ohio 44109, Attorneys for Appellant. Michael Edward Mumford -- mmumford@bakerlaw.com -- Ernest E. Vargo -- evargo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler L.L.P., Key Tower, Suite 2000, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114; Michael R. Nelson -- michael.nelson@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan L.L.P., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor, New York, New York 10036, Attorneys for Appellees. PROSTEAM CARPET: "Wegat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Wegat and Jeff Puglisi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prosteam Carpet Care, LLC, Gina Krohn, and James F. Krohn, II, Case No. 4:16-cv-01931 (E.D. Miss., December 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of residential and commercial cleaning of flooring and upholstery, with a specific focus on carpet cleaning. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell C. Riggan, Esq. Samuel Moore, Esq. RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC 132 West Washington Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkwood, MO 63122 Telephone: (314) 835-9100 Facsimile: (314) 735-1054 E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com smoore@rigganlawfirm.com QUICKEN LOANS: "McLemore" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TAMIKA MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUICKENS LOANS INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 14397-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion seeking to certify these classes: Pre-Recorded Message Class: "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant called using a pre- recorded message, (3) on the person's cellular telephone, (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services, and (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff"; Autodialed No Consent Class: "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called using the same equipment that was used to call the Plaintiff, (3) on the person's cellular telephone, (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services, and (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff"; Do Not Call Registry Class: "all persons in the United States who (1) on or four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called more than one time on his/her cellphone, (3) within any 12-month period, (4) where the cellphone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (5) for the purpose of offering the called party a loan, and (6) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff"; and No Mortgage Class: "all renters in the United States who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called using a the same technology that was used to call the Plaintiff, (3) on the person's cellular telephone, (4) for the purpose of offering the called party the opportunity to refinance the called party's supposed mortgage loan, where (5) Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff". The Defendant obtained the telephone numbers of thousands of consumers nationwide -- including Plaintiff and proposed classes of consumers -- and made unsolicited calls to those consumers to market its services. Through that conduct, Defendant not only invaded their personal privacy, it repeatedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted specifically to protect consumers from unsolicited calls like those alleged in the case. Quicken Loans is a direct-to-consumer home lender; it has provided home purchase financing products to more than 2 million borrowers and closed more than $140 billion in mortgage loans in 2013 and 2014 alone. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kvmr0O2q The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Woodrow & Peluso, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit Re: Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund ask the Court to issue an order: 1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 and certifying the class as defined as: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rayonier Inc. ("Rayonier" or the "Company") common stock during the period from October 26, 2010 through November 7, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged (the Class). Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of each Individual Defendant; (iii) any person who was an officer or director of Rayonier; (iv) any firm or entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) any person who participated in the wrongdoing alleged; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance carriers; (vii) any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of Rayonier; (viii) all Rayonier plans that are covered by ERISA; and (ix) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any excluded person or entity, in their respective capacity as such. 2. appointing Operating Engineers and Lake Worth as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel. According to the complaint, Rayonier and its former senior executives made a series of misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's harvesting practices in its critical Pacific Northwest Region, claiming that Rayonier was harvesting well below the "sustainable" level and accurately reporting its "merchantable timber." The Company's later admissions of the true facts caused its stock price to plummet 20%, wiping out nearly a billion dollars of market capitalization. In situations like this, courts across the country have recognized that class certification is appropriate. Led by two institutional investors - - the type that Congress envisioned should lead securities fraud class actions -- this case is ideally suited for class treatment, as it satisfies each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vx99L2im Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and Lead Counsel for the Class: David R. Stickney, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 793 0070 Facsimile: (858) 793 0323 E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Lake Worth Firefighters Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916 1202 Facsimile: (954) 916 1232 bob@robertdklausner.com RED APPLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Conway" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Conway, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Apple Consultants, LLC, TEG Staffing Inc. d/b/a Eastridge Workforce Recruitment, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-16-555896 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's uniform policy and systemic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly paid employees in California. The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment in San Francisco, California, for the purpose of assisting customer store owners with sale campaign and merchandising to increase sales of products at the store level. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mattew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. Micheal Righett, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, PC 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHARLES TAYLOR and RICHARD LaBRYER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00502 (S.D, Tex.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for conditional certification and notice to putative class Members: In order to facilitate the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action provisions, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to provide the following relief to Plaintiffs: 1. order Republic to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the granting of this Motion, in a computer-readable format such as Excel, the contact information (including the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, employee identification numbers, dates of birth, dates of employment with corresponding locations of employment and whether employed as residential, industrial, or commercial driver's license numbers and social security numbers) for each Putative Class Member; 2. approve the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed judicial notice and reminder notice; 3. order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members via First Class Mail and e-mail, and allow the hiring of a third-party administration company, for use at Plaintiffs' discretion; 4. authorize Putative Class Members to execute their consent forms electronically; 5. authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the case; and 6. approve that notice be sent to the Putative Class Members twice -- the first time within 30 days of receiving the list of Putative Class Members from Republic and a second time 30 days after, but only to those Putative Class Members who have not yet submitted their Consent Forms; and 7. For any such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ayvS2roC The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Anderson2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Rich Seeks to Certify Drivers Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS E. RICH, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07330-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move on February 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., the Court for a class certification. The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have misclassified their drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees and, as such, have (1) failed to provide Plaintiffs with meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Order; (2) failed to provide Plaintiffs with rest breaks; (3) failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages; (4) failed to pay Plaintiffs all wages upon separation (5) failed to furnish Plaintiffs with timely and accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay Plaintiffs all wages owed every pay period; (7) failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business-related expenses; and (8) violated California Unfair Competition Law. A copy of the Motion is available at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yG52FSl5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. Shant A. Karnikian, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217 5000 Facsimile: (213) 217 5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com ck@kbklawyers.com sk@kbklawyers.com - and - Nicholas J.P. Wagner, Esq. Andrew B. Jones, Esq. Daniel M. Kopfman, Esq. Lawrence M. Artenian, Esq. WAGNER, JONES, KOPFMAN & ARTENIAN LLP 1111 E. Herndon, Ste. 317 Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: (559) 449 1800 Facsimile: (559) 449 0749 ROOMS TO GO NORTH: Sued Over ForceField Protection Plans -------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that national plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein -- which opened an office in Raleigh earlier this year -- is representing plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp. The suit alleges that Rooms to Go customers purchased, along with furniture, "ForceField" fabric and leather protection plans from the company that were either improperly applied or not applied at all. "Because of Defendants' deceptive conduct and failure to honor their contractual obligations, Plaintiff and putative class members spent millions on ForceField Protection Plans that had little value," the complaint states. Former North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Martha Geer, a partner in Cohen Milstein's Raleigh office, is heading the charge for lead plaintiff Kenny Triplett and other class members in the case. Judge Geer did not return a request for comment on the case; however, in an interview last month, she noted the significance of a national plaintiffs firm making the move to North Carolina, particularly when it comes to class actions. Most plaintiffs firms in the state are small shops with one to five attorneys, said Judge Geer. "Many of them have indicated to me that they don't even think about the potential for class action or large civil litigations," she said. Partnering with Cohen Milstein will provide the "resources to participate in larger scale litigation they can't do on their own both inside and outside of North Carolina." A spokeswoman for Rooms to Go -- which opened a $40 million, 1.45 million-square-foot facility in Harnett County last year -- did not respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit. Attorneys for Rooms to Go haven't yet filed an appearance in the case. The suit was filed at the beginning of December in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On Dec. 6, the lawsuit was selected for mediation. ROSS STUART: Court Narrows Claims in "Burns" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Linda V. Parker granted in part and denied, in part, Edward Rose & Sons, LLC's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint in the case captioned PARKER BURNS, Plaintiff, v. ROSS STUART & DAWSON, INC., and EDWARD ROSE & SONS, LLC a/k/a THE VILLAGE, Defendants, Civil Case No. 16-10917 (E.D. Mich.). In 2007, Rose entered into an agreement with Ross, Stuart & Dawson, Inc. (RSD) titled, "Edward Rose & Sons Demand Letter 'Duns' Agreement". A "Duns Letter" or "Dunning Letter" is a notice to a customer that payment of an account receivable is overdue. According to the defendants' agreement, RSD agreed to provide Rose demand letter services, and that Rose will pay $3.45 for 5,000 units. On March 14, 2016, Parker Burns, who received a letter to collect on an alleged debt, initiated an action claiming that the defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA) by sending the letter. Burns brought the lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of other consumers who received the same letter, alleging that the defendants violated the FDCPA and RCPA In his Amended Complaint filed April 25, 2016, Burns alleged that RSD is a "flat-rater" under 15 U.S.C. section 1692j. Burns further alleged that the defendants are violating sections 1692e and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA "with a contracted scheme and plan to using [sic] false, deceptive and misleading representations and means in connection with the collection of debts . . . using letters such as [the letter sent to Plaintiff]." Burns claimed that Rose is violating section 1692e(14) of the FDCPA by using RSD "to conduct its own debt collection under the guise of just being the creditor even though the letter . . . is written to promote all contact and collection efforts by only Defendant Rose. . . ." Burns asserted that the defendants' conduct also violates sections 1692a(6) and 1692f of the FDCPA, as well as Sections 252(n), (e), (f), and (q) of the RCPA, Mich. Comp. Laws section 445.252(n), (e), (f), (q). On May 12, 2016, Rose moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rose sought dismissal of Burns' claims against it, contending first that Rose is not liable as a "flat-rater" because it did not design, compile, and furnish the letter Burns received. Second, Rose argued that the actions complained of do not legally constitute "flat-rating" because RSD participated in the collection process and thus Rose is not a "debt collector" subject to liability under the FDCPA. Rose contended that Burns' state law claims fail because they are duplicative of his FDCPA claims or he fails to allege facts supporting the claims. Judge Parker found sufficient allegations to support Burns' claim that: (1) RSD is a flat-rater; (2) The defendants engaged in a flat rating scheme; and (3) Rose can be held liable under the FDCPA because it used this scheme to create the false impression that RSD was engaged in the collection of Burns' debt, when, in fact, RSD did nothing more than draft and send the letter to Burns. Judge Parker, however, found that the Amended Complaint is devoid of facts to support Burns' claim that the defendants violated sections 252(f), (n), or (q) of the RCPA. The judge found that the Amended Complaint did not allege a violation by any employee of Rose or RSD, nor did it allege a procedure that should have been implemented. Judge Parker thus concluded that Burns alleged sufficient facts to state viable claims against Rose for violations of sections 1692a(6), 1692e(10), and 1692e(14) of the FDCPA and Section 252(e) of the RCPA. The judge, however, also concluded that Burns failed to allege any facts to support violations of Sections 252(f), (n), or (q) of the RCPA and those claims are dismissed. A full-text copy of Judge Parker's December 1, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/YSYUXa from Leagle.com. Parker Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker -- brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- Brian P. Parker Assoc.. Ross, Stuart & Dawson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson, Olson Law Group. Edward Rose & Sons, LLC aka and dba The Village, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Pauwels -- apauwels@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn & Michael P. Hindelang -- mhindelang@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller. RSI ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSI ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No2:16-cv-01653-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), Mr. Peter Loveland moves the Court to certify a class. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MQrwgmAN The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com RUTHERFORD COUNTY: Certification of Students Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as T.H., a minor child, and S.M., as parent and next friend, and individually, and J.D., a minor child, and T.D. and K.D., As parents and next friends, and individually; and persons similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:16-cv-01367 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify: a class defined as: "all current and future 504-eligible students (but not IDEA)"; and a subclasses defined as: "(1) future students who have not yet received an evaluation for related services and must be evaluated properly (2) current students who have received an evaluation for services but for whom the consideration of direct related services or health services was not permitted". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Gilbert Russell McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, PLC as counsel to the class because they are familiar to this Court and have the necessary blend of being well-versed in federal litigation, education-reform litigation, special-education litigation, and class-action litigation. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dC0dEZz8 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC 100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd, Suite 504 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 499 3044 Facsimile: (731) 664 1540 E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey L. Reed, Esq. COPE, HUDSON, REED, AND MCCREARY, PLLC 16 N. Public Square Murfreesboro, TN 37130 E-mail: jreed@mborolaw.com - and - Melinda Jacobs THE LAW OFFICE OF MELINDA JACOBS 163 Kelly Ridge Road Townsend, TN 37882 E-mail: jacobslawmelinda@gmail.com - and - Joyce Safley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MELINDA JACOBS 321 Billingsly Court, Suite 16 Franklin, TN 37064 E-mail: jacobslawjoyce@gmail.com SAMSUNG: To Begin Galaxy Note 7 Software Update Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that the end is near. Samsung announced on Dec. 9 that a forthcoming software update for Galaxy Note 7s will brick the smartphone model. The software update was set to start to roll out starting on Dec. 19. Samsung said the software update, which will be distributed within 30 days, will be designed to prevent Galaxy Note 7 devices in the U.S. from charging, effectively eliminating the troubled smartphone model's ability to function as mobile devices. Samsung will be working with its carrier partners to notify consumers -- with the exception of Verizon, said Reuters -- to encourage any remaining Galaxy Note 7 owners to participate in the smartphone return program. Consumers who have a Galaxy Note 7 device can either exchange their phone for another Samsung model or receive a refund. Verizon reportedly said it would not take part in the update to protect Galaxy Note 7 users who do not have another device to switch to. As of now, Samsung reports that over 93 percent of all recalled Galaxy Note 7 devices had been returned as a part of the U.S. exchange program. Samsung recalled 2.5 million Galaxy Note 7 Phones back in September after it was discovered that the phone's battery unit had the nasty tendency to overheat and catch fire. Then, in October, it was found that at least four of the replacement Note phones had also caught on fire. One phone ignited moments before the airplane it was on left the ground, leading to a U.S. Transportation Department ban of the smartphone model on all flights or in checked baggage. Samsung announced back in October of this year that the tech giant would permanently pull the Galaxy Note 7 phone from the market. The company's U.S. unit is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of three former Galaxy Note 7 owners representing the Samsung customers who experienced phone troubles. SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL: Montana Files Suit Seeking Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- MONTANA DATACOM, INC., the Plaintiff, v. SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., JACOB LEVITA, ROBERT SOLOMON, SAKS FLAGSHIP REAL PROPERTY LLC and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 160145/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks recovery of moneys due to Montana in connection with its provision to Schlesinger of certain wire and cable products, including through the foreclosure of a certain mechanic's lien duly filed by Montana as to the Premises. According to the complaint, Schlesinger purchased the Products from Montana for installation at various construction/development sites located throughout New York City. Thereafter, Montana provided and delivered the Products to Schlesinger at a series of different locations at which Schlesinger had been contracted to provide electrical services, including the Premises. As a result of Schlesinger's failure to make payment, Montana has been damaged in the amount of $13,454.50, together with interest from the dates on which each of the Products were provided, together with Montana's costs and expenses. Montana seeks to recover from Schlesinger, Levita, Solomon, and John Does Nos. 1-5, jointly and severally, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $250,000.00. Montana further demands judgment adjudging that Montana and all other claimants similarly situated have claims against a trust fund for the amount of their respective claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Borg, Esq. BORG LAW LLP 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 800 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 495 4790 SCORES BALTIMORE: Strip Club Dancers File Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------- Jessica Anderson, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that dancers at strip clubs have long been considered "independent contractors" whose wages consist solely of tips. But a wave of lawsuits against clubs across the country -- including in Baltimore, New York, Atlanta, San Diego and Denver -- has challenged that, and legal victories in Maryland and elsewhere have added dancers to payrolls at some clubs. In New York City, more than 2,000 dancers who worked at Rick's Cabaret between 2005 and 2012 were awarded $10.9 million in a class-action lawsuit they brought against their employer. "These are employees, no different from waiters or waitresses," and deserve a base compensation, said Gregg C. Greenberg, a Silver Spring attorney who has represented nearly 60 dancers in lawsuits against clubs across the state. Under Maryland law, tipped employees can receive $3.63 an hour, less than the minimum wage of $8.75 for jobs where employees receive no tips. Mr. Greenberg's most recent case was brought by Stephanie Gamble, who went by the name of "Lady Luck" as a dancer and bartender at Chez Joey, club on The Block in Baltimore. Ms. Gamble contended that she was not an independent contractor, but an employee who worked regular shifts at the club and never received a paycheck. Ms. Gamble settled out of court last month and received unpaid wages, Mr. Greenberg said. He would not disclose the amount, and Gamble could not be reached for comment. Mr. Greenberg also represented six women who sued two adult clubs in Prince George's County in federal court in 2012, alleging that the clubs did not pay them the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws. After the women won their case in U.S. District Court, the clubs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. The dancers argued that they "were closely regulated by defendants, from their hours to their earnings to their workplace conduct," according to court documents. Attorneys for the clubs argued that the dancers were "free agents that came and went as they pleased," and used the clubs as a rented space, according to court documents. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said the clubs' argument did not hold up. The "relaxed working relationship represented by defendants -- the kind that perhaps every worker dreams about -- finds little support in the record," he ruled in upholding the lower court ruling in June. Cari Tabor, who sued the Baltimore club Scores in 2014, said that on a good night, she could make $1,000 in tips. But sometimes she didn't make enough to cover fees charged by the club. She said a minimum wage helps make sure employees are being compensated for their time. "It's a base start," she said. Historically, strip clubs have treated dancers differently from other staff when it comes to pay. "It's always been that way until recent cases. If you were a bar or a nightclub and hired a band, or comedians, you wouldn't think of those entertainers as employees," said Baltimore attorney Peter Prevas, who has represented several clubs, including Chez Joey in Gamble's lawsuit. Mr. Prevas said when strip clubs bring in adult film stars to dance for a limited engagement, they are not considered employees, either. "The industry has always treated it that way," he said. Mr. Prevas said he first started seeing the pay lawsuits about five years ago. He said paying dancers a regular wage is a large expense that could potentially put some clubs out of business. "It's all over the country," he said. "I read all the reported cases all over the country, and there's lots." Andrew Alley, owner of Scores Baltimore, declined to comment on specific cases, but said the lawsuits are driven by attorneys looking to make money. Ms. Tabor, 38, said in her lawsuit against Scores that she was charged "house fees" during each shift she worked. Her suit also alleged that she could be charged for gaining weight. "There's plenty nights where you have to pay $80 to work that night," said Ms. Tabor, who said she began stripping when she was 17 but has since stopped. "Really, we were the ones making them money," she said. Her case against Scores was dismissed by a judge, who cited a three-year statute of limitations. She stopped working at Scores in 2011. Alley would not say whether Scores pays hourly wages to dancers now. Norma Jean's began issuing paychecks to dancers after several lawsuits were brought against the club since 2013. In one case, brought by Tanae Taylor, which was settled last November, the club paid $27,000 to Taylor plus additional legal fees, according to court records. Transitioning to paychecks took some time, and cost the club. "You've got many clubs that don't do what we do," said Peter Ireland, one of the club's owners. "It hurts us, but in the long run, they're going to eventually hit them, too," he said of other clubs. Jeanean Lawson, manager at Norma Jean's, said the Baltimore club used to write all of its payroll checks by hand because it did not have many employees. But after adding about 80 dancers, the club switched to a payroll company to handle the task, she said. "It's very different. It affects our bottom line. It's an expense we didn't have to pay," Ms. Lawson said. "It could easily break any successful business." But Ms. Lawson said the hourly pay is a way to show employees they are valued. "We can't make money without them," she said. "They deserve respect like anyone else." On a recent night on The Block, Kabrina Hudnell, a former dancer, waited to meet friends. She said she stopped dancing because business at the clubs has slowed and she wasn't making any money. She pointed to clubs on The Block where she previously worked and said they still do not pay dancers an hourly wage. "They are not even paying us. We're just sitting there naked for eight hours. They're really not looking out for us," said Hudnell, 22. "The pay ain't fair at all. If you don't have dancers, you don't have a strip club," she said. Nearby, Kate Miller, 21, waited for her mother to pick her up after a shift at Chez Joey. She sells drinks, which requires her to wear lingerie and heels, but she doesn't dance. She said does not earn an hourly wage but makes money by getting patrons to buy $25 "ladies' drinks" in her name. "Today, I only did three. It's not too packed," she said. Ms. Miller, who lives in Baltimore County, said she now works only part time at the club after getting a job at a hotel front desk, where she makes a steady hourly wage. She hopes to move into the hotel position full time. "It's different working for just tips. Hourly, you get paid for your time being there," even if it's slow, she said. SIRIUSXM: Turtles Royalty Class Action Settlement Favorable ----------------------------------------------------------- Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that losing between 25 and 40 million dollars in a legal settlement would be a crippling blow for virtually any company -- but for satellite radio giant SiriusXM, which cut such a deal in November after a long battle with pop group The Turtles over pre-1972 royalty payments, it could turn out to be a triumph. For the past eight years SiriusXM has not been paying royalties on the music it plays that was recorded before 1972, the year that the U.S. copyright for master recordings became part of federal law. The Turtles contested the provision with a class-action lawsuit filed against SiriusXM in 2013. (In 2014 The Turtles also sued Pandora, which hasn't paid royalties for pre-1972 recordings since 2011.) The suit assert that, while such songs are not covered by federal law, they are protected by state laws and are entitled to royalty payments. (So far, the Turtles' suits against Sirius have prevailed in California and New York, although they lost in Florida; all three decisions are under appeal.) On Nov. 28 Sirius and The Turtles reached an agreement around that $25 million to $40 million payout, which would go to both The Turtles and independent labels that own music made before 1972. While the settlement doesn't put a stop to any legal proceedings, it does act as a form of insurance for The Turtles and labels participating in the class action, guaranteeing that they will receive a pro-rata share of royalties from the $25-40 million pool. The settlement simultaneously protects SiriusXM by placing an upper limit on its financial obligation. (If the Turtles prevail in all three appeals, the pool grows by $5 million each time, but caps the settlement at $40 million.) SiriusXM issued a statement at the time of its agreement with The Turtles and class participants, noting that "the agreement does not resolve the fundamental legal question in these lawsuits -- whether the law grants owners of pre-1972 recordings a right to control performances of those recordings -- with each side retaining the right to pursue appeals on that issue." (Moreover, the settlement still needs to be approved by the courts.) The Turtles' legal team, of Gradstein & Marzano, are currently vetting administrators to oversee the payout. The class action is inclusive for all indie labels and has been set up as an opt-out system. Once the claim process begins, master recording copyright owners will be able to look though a list of songs issued before 1972 -- songs that have been played a combined total of 11.8 million times. After labels stake a claim on the records they own the rights to, they will receive a pro-rata share of the funds based on their number of plays, expected to range from $15 to $25 per. Sirius reached a similar settlement with the major labels and ABKCO in 2015, agreeing to pay out $210 million for their recordings made before 1972. So . . . where is the win for SiriusXM, which is potentially out $40 million? As part of the agreement, SiriusXM also gets a 10- year license to play the pre-1972 recordings at issue in the three suits, and has agreed to pay royalties out of a pool of revenue comprising 5.5 percent of its gross revenue. That rate has some major label executives concerned, since it is only half of the rate -- 11 percent of revenue -- that SiriusXM is scheduled to pay in 2017. While SiriusXM has the highest per-play payout in the U.S. industry, its overall revenue payout is one of the lowest. Many interactive services pay as much as 70 percent of revenue for publishing and recorded master royalties; Pandora's non-interactive service pays about 45 percent. SiriusXM's main competitor, terrestrial radio, pays nothing for playing master recordings, and pays about 2.5 percent to 4 percent of revenue to songwriters. Some major label executives fear Sirius will attempt to position the Turtles' settlement rate of 5.5 percent rate as a benchmark that the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) could use when setting statutory rates in the future. In fact, the CRB relied heavily on two such direct deals when setting rates for digital radio last year. If Sirius can get the judges which determine statutory royalty rates to agree that 5.5 percent represents a benchmark -- and thus doesn't give SoundExchange their 23 percent rate -- then the $25- 40 million it's looking down the barrel at paying now could end up saving it $570 million a year over the next five years (the period currently being considered in the CRB's rate setting process). SiriusXM generated revenues of $4.6 billion in 2015. Extrapolated against that year's statutory rate, 10.5 percent of gross revenue, the company should have paid out roughly $480 million to labels and artists that year (if it hadn't deducted royalties for the pre-1972 recordings). At the 23 percent level, that would mean a $1.05 billion payout to labels. Henry Gradstein -- hgradstein@gradstein.com -- partner at Gradstein & Marzano, dismisses the notion of the settlement rate being cited as a benchmark in future talks. He says it's not clear that every state has a law protecting the pre-1972 recordings and that The Turtles settlement is based on having a victory in only three states, which only represent about 13 percent of Sirius subscriber base. (That's why the going-forward royalty fee cited in the settlement will decrease by 2 percent if The Turtles lose in New York and 1.5 percent if they lose in Florida, which would leave the 10-year licensing deal with only a 2 percent of revenue royalty pool.) Making matters worse, from the perspective of those worried about a precedent-setting benchmark, a 5.5 percent rate is not the only deal that SiriusXM might put forth as representing a benchmark deal. According to the court documents, 5.5 percent is the highest rate of all the direct deals SiriusXM has cut with indie labels. SMART TOYS: Faces We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Owais Sultan, writing for Hackread, reports that the vibrators that have the ability to connect to the internet have come under the hammer for gathering private data of customers. The manufacturer of these Smart Toys aims to settle a class-action privacy lawsuit, which was recently filed by a complainer in an Illinois federal court, by agreeing to the terms of the plaintiff's claims. It is being claimed by the plaintiff that the vibrators are violating customer's privacy by capturing app settings in which the user sets vibration levels and the duration for which the vibrators were used. The Canadian based manufacturer has reportedly "agreed to terms" against the claims of the accuser. The accuser filed a lawsuit in September "on behalf of herself and a putative settlement class." The accuser is an anonymous woman from Chicago, who claimed that the abovementioned smart toys work with an app, which is available for both iOS and Android devices. Apparently, the app collects information without the knowledge or consent of the customers. The collected information includes the frequency and duration of usage of the toys and the vibration settings as well as temperature levels of vibrators. It is worth noting that the We-Vibe app lets users control the vibrator remotely through their smartphones, which has to be paired with the device. It does not necessarily require the creation of an account with the company. Eve-Lynn Rapp, the law firm's attorney which filed the Chicago woman's lawsuit, stated that this incident is yet another "incredible" example of how consumers' privacy is being violated through innovative yet unreliable smart gadgets. The accuser bought the We-Vibe vibrator in May for $130 after which she downloaded the We-Vibe's-Connect app. However, she complained in her lawsuit that she was never informed by the manufacturer that "personally identifiable" information will be monitored as soon as the app was activated. The spokesperson of Standard Innovation, Denny Alexander stated that: "There's been no allegation that any of our customers' data has been compromised. However, given the intimate nature of our products, the privacy and security of our customers' data are of utmost importance to our company. Accordingly, we take concerns about customer privacy and our data practices seriously." SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Byrd" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, Case No. 16-3548 (Mass. Cmmw. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation operates Royal Sonesta Boston hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Beauvais, Esq. Lou Saban, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW PO Box 761235 Malden, MA 02176 Telephone: (781) 462-1669 E-mail: thomas@beauvaislegal.com SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Khaziran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Khaziran, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., FAA Beverly Hills, Inc. d/b/a Beverly Hills BMW, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC643719 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, wages for meal and rest period violations, reimbursement of business expenses, restitution, as well as other statutory penalties and damages owed pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants operate an automobile dealership located at 5070 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855-3270 Facsimile: (310) 855-3751 E-mail: berenji@employeeiustice.law kazandjian@employeejustice.law STARBUCKS: Court to Review De Minimis Doctrine Issue Next Year -------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports that it is a lawsuit that has largely made its way through the court system under the radar, but it is one with potentially major implications for businesses, both large and small. The class-action suit against Starbucks centers on whether a worker should be paid for the time it takes to arm an alarm, walk out of the store and lock the door. The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a plaintiff's arguments in the case after it was thrown out by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is expected next year. The Supreme Court will decide whether a long-standing federal rule -- the de minimis doctrine that employees do not have to be paid for the small amount of time spent on premises after clocking out -- applies to California labor law. "The case has huge implications for California employers," Anthony Zaller, a Los Angeles-based employment lawyer, told the Northern California Record. "Will the court recognize that employers have a de minimis defense? If not, it will change the landscape and you will see a lot more of these type of wage and hour class actions against every size of businesses. What might happen is just the threat of a lawsuit, and potentially spending thousands on defending it, may lead employers to settling cases." Douglas Troester filed a lawsuit alleging that Starbucks violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay him for short periods of time he spent closing the store. He alleged Starbucks failed to pay him for time spent walking out of the store after activating the security alarm, for the time he spent turning the lock on the store's front door, and for the time he spent occasionally reopening the door so that a co-worker could retrieve a coat. The plaintiff, represented by attorney David Spivak, of the Spivak Law Firm, filed a class-action suit under the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements and failure to timely pay all final wages. Mr. Spivak did not return calls asking for comment. Starbucks filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff's case based upon the de minimis doctrine. The trial court agreed. "People are really looking for something for nothing," Betty Toccoli, president of the California Small Business Association told the Northern California Record. "We are trying to keep jobs, and this sort of thing makes some business owners not want to hire people. This potentially sets a precedent. If it does go through, there are serious ramifications, and this in California where we just got hit with $15 an hour minimum wage. This case is against business, and it's one more thing to harm job creation." Mr. Zaller said it is hard to say why the Supreme Court takes on certain cases but he speculated that the main reason the court granted review of this one is because de minimis is a federal rule and the plaintiff has argued that it does not apply to California. This clarification is needed despite other courts noting that California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement -- "the agency empowered to enforce California's labor laws" -- has adopted the federal regulation in its manual. Under de minimis, which has been in place for five decades, it is thought that 10 minutes in any day does not have to be counted when calculating wages. While the California Supreme Court has not adjudicated on this matter, the Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District applied a federal standard when permitting employers to round employee time entries to the nearest five minutes, one-tenth, or a quarter of an hour. The case was Candy Shops Inc. v. Superior Court, Mr. Zaller said, and the rounding was expected to be in favor of both parties. Given the uncertainty, the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. The Supreme Court's decision in the Starbucks case could potentially have a wider impact regarding whether other federal wage and hour doctrines have any place in interpreting California law, Mr. Zaller said, "It seems realistic to expect the court to rule in favor of Starbucks because without some standard the argument could come down to seconds and that is when it gets ridiculous," Mr. Zaller said. "It really should not give rise to a lawsuit just as long as employers are not trying to take advantage of employees." If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Zaller said he does not expect the legislature to step in and pass a pro-employer law. "The California legislature is very pro-plaintiff and will not disagree," he said. STERN & EISENBERG: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Beach" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as MAXINE BEACH, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STEVEN K. EISENBERG, STERN & EISENBERG, P.C. and AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:15-cv-05942-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Timothy J. Savage, J. entered an order on December 12, 2016 denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6DjwGEoL THERANOS: Investors File Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Mercury News, reports that removed from the volatile world of the public stock markets, private startups are usually safe from the investor lawsuits that plague Silicon Valley companies every time their shares plunge. But in a rare case, embattled blood-testing startup Theranos was sued by investors claiming that the Palo Alto company conned them out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The securities class action, filed before Theranos has even hinted at plans for an initial public offering, highlights the increasingly risky legal environment private companies must navigate and showcases the dangers investors face when dealing in private securities. Theranos is an egregious example -- shareholders accuse the company of lying and knowingly peddling a product that didn't work -- but experts say more startups could face these types of suits as the market for private securities continues to expand. "What you've seen over the last four or five years -- particularly around the unicorn phenomenon -- is people buying shares in these companies with little to no information, largely driven by hype and hope," said Robert Ackerman Jr., founder of Allegis Capital, a venture capital firm with offices in San Francisco and Palo Alto. "And then, when the facts reveal themselves, or when they get more information, they're surprised." Buoyed by floods of venture capital money that have poured in over the past few years, startups such as Uber and Airbnb are putting off IPOs while simultaneously tempting investors with valuations reaching tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, employees at these companies have bills to pay, so they're cashing out by selling their shares on largely unregulated private markets. And investors, excited by the "unicorn" hype -- the glowing aura that seems to surround private companies with valuations of $1 billion or higher -- are snapping up those shares. But unlike publicly traded companies, which disclose quarterly financial reports and are subject to regular analyst reviews, private companies pick and choose what, if any, information to reveal. Theranos is an unusual case, because its investors claim the company intentionally defrauded them -- something that may have happened regardless of whether the company was public or private. But Reed Kathrein, one of the lawyers who filed the suit, said if Theranos had been public at the time, the company would have been subject to greater oversight and the problems with its product may have come to light sooner. "I think it shows the dangers of investing in these companies," the Berkeley-based lawyer said. "You don't have the same protections. You don't have the same disclosure requirements." According to the lawsuit, Theranos spent three years drawing in investors with false promises about the company's revolutionary technology that could test for hundreds of diseases using a pinprick's worth of blood. Founder Elizabeth Holmes gave hundreds of interviews and appeared in articles in major publications -- many of which the plaintiffs' lawyers are using as evidence in their case against the company. In October, The Wall Street Journal punctured the Theranos dream with an article claiming the company was struggling to turn its revolutionary idea into a reality, and that its signature machine was being used for just a handful of tests. The article marked the start of a downward spiral for the company -- after being hit with sanctions from federal regulators and voiding tens of thousands of its blood tests, Theranos agreed to close its blood- testing facilities and lay off more than 40 percent of its workforce. On Dec. 8, the company announced that it will retire its "board of counselors," whose members includes former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. A San Francisco hedge fund that invested in Theranos sued the company in October, followed a month later by Walgreens -- Theranos' former partner. The lawyers in the class-action suit against Theranos say their clients poured at least $633 million into the startup. They have lost millions, the lawyers claim, citing a Forbes report that concluded Theranos' value has dropped more than 90 percent -- plummeting from $9 billion to $800 million in two years. Hilary Taubman-Dye, a San Mateo-based technical recruiter and one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, bought Theranos shares in August 2015 via SharesPost, an online marketplace that matches buyers and sellers of private securities. The sale was still pending when the Wall Street Journal story broke in October, and she and other investors unsuccessfully tried to cancel their purchases, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Taubman-Dye declined to comment through her lawyer. The other named plaintiff, Robert Colman, bought Theranos shares in September 2013 through a Lucas Venture Group venture capital fund. In addition to Ms. Taubman-Dye, Kathrein said "quite a few" other class-action members used SharesPost. To put money into private securities through a platform like SharesPost, investors typically must be "accredited," meaning they have a net worth of at least $1 million or an annual income of $200,000. In theory, they are sophisticated investors who know their way around a good deal. But last spring new rules went into effect that opened the door for anyone to invest in private startups through equity crowdfunding platforms. Those platforms work like Kickstarter, but instead of receiving a T-shirt or an early edition of a product in exchange for their cash contributions, investors receive a stake in the company. As startups continue to avoid going public and the private securities market becomes more popular, new exchanges that try to offer safe ways for investors to buy are popping up. Nasdaq Private Market, which launched in 2014 and gives private companies control over who can buy and sell their shares, handled $544 million in deals during the first half of 2016 -- a 136 percent increase from the first half of the year before. "I think what we're seeing is the growing pains associated with the secondary market," Mr. Ackerman said. "And what I expect what we will see over time is more institutionalization of secondary sales, where there will be more information available." TREEHOUSE FOODS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 1, 2016 and November 2, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are reminded to contact the Firm prior to the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of TreeHouse during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or via e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that TreeHouse made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's private label business and acquisition strategy were underperforming; that TreeHouse overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as a result of the above, TreeHouse's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When this information was revealed to the public, the value of TreeHouse fell, causing investors harm. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Recount Fraud Class Action Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristina Davis, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports that the Trump University lawsuit landed at a small downtown San Diego law firm the way so many cases do -- with a phone call. Aaron Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- an attorney at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, took the call in January 2010 and, unlike the prosecutors and other civil attorneys who had blown off former student Tarla Makaeff, he listened to her story. The class-action lawsuit she filed against Donald Trump and his defunct Trump University became a centerpiece of the presidential campaign, featured in debates and on "Saturday Night Live." The end result: a $25 million settlement by the president-elect for thousands of former students 6 1/2 years later. Trump did not admit any liability or wrongdoing in settling the case, saying the resolution allows him to focus on his presidential transition. For the attorneys in the two firms who worked on the case, taking on defendants like real estate mogul Donald Trump wasn't new. They'd gone up against Apple, Pfizer, Walmart, Sony Electronics and Mattel. But none of them could have anticipated the trajectory this lawsuit would take as Trump went from celebrity to GOP presidential front runner to the nation's next commander in chief. In interviews with The San Diego Union-Tribune, the attorneys recounted one of the most significant lawsuits of their careers. "Nobody could have seen Donald Trump's rise politically," attorney Helen Zeldes said. "We took the case long before the White House was a sparkle in his eye." Looking back, the lawyers who buried themselves in the case said the charisma and economic solutions Trump used to influence Trump University students are the same traits he used to win over voters. "He says things that resonate with people and that people have been waiting to hear," said San Diego attorney Jason Forge, who was among lawyers from the much larger Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd firm brought on to help litigate the case. "He did that as a candidate and did that with Trump University. What do you want to hear most when economic times are at their worst? They want to hear there's a way out of this. They want to hear there's hope. A guy as successful as he's been, and been through bad times financially, is who you want to hear from. "The guy has an uncanny knack for sensing what people want to hear and what will motivate them," Mr. Forge said. That savvy helped launch him to the White House. "His genius at creating his brand is really impressive," said attorney Rachel Jensen. "We've seen that through this case. He knows how to create a narrative and get people motivated and knows how to close the deal." How the case began When Ms. Zeldes heard about Ms. Makaeff's call to her firm -- a four-person operation in 2010 -- her ears perked up. "I thought, 'Trump University. Is there a university I hadn't heard of? Is this a real university? Do people really think this is a university?'" she recalled. As luck would have it, a 90-minute Trump University preview seminar was being held in San Marcos. Ms. Zeldes decided to check it out. "My heart broke," Ms. Zeldes said. "I thought, wow, this is really a dog and pony show. You walk in and there's these big life-sized posters of Donald Trump. I got to hear the pitch and see people really compelled by the pitch they were making. . . . They'd say 'How many people lost equity on their homes? How many want to leave that legacy for their children? How many of you want to learn how to make that money back?'" The attendees were encouraged to pay $1,500 for a three-day seminar to learn more, which led to pitches for a $35,000 yearlong program promising real estate riches, according to former students. Ms. Makaeff claimed to have spent about $60,000 in all. Ms. Zeldes' firm took the case on a contingency, but before filing the complaint in San Diego federal court the attorneys brought on Robbins Geller, which had more staff and resources. Once the lawsuit was filed on April 30, 2010, the phone calls started coming in. "I probably personally spoke to almost 400 people who took Trump University courses," attorney Amber Eck recalled. "These are devastating stories." From seniors to business people to real estate entrepreneurs, the students had similar stories of being encouraged to max out one, two or three credit cards to pay for Trump University courses, Eck said, or to take out retirement savings, inheritances or home equity credit. The attorneys' big break in the case came when they began hearing from former Trump University employees. They leaked playbooks and scripts used by instructors long before the items were released in discovery. The documents detailed the room layout during seminars, the temperature the thermometer should be set at ("no more than 68 degrees"), the many comebacks that employees could use when students were reluctant to put down money. "They specifically set up the room so the exit would be blocked so it'd be difficult to get past a Trump University person," Ms. Eck said. Trump fights back Early on in the case, Trump delivered a counter punch, suing Ms. Makaeff for defamation. "There was no grace period where there was smooth sailing," said Ms. Jensen, of Robbins Geller. "This case always had challenges by virtue of who the defendant is." Trump's suit made its way to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Makaeff prevailed. Jensen questioned Trump during his first deposition in 2012 at Trump Tower in New York and described the encounter as confrontational. "He threatened to sue me and my firm. There was bullying and intimidation going on," she said. Trump aggressively defended his program. He and his legal team said Makaeff and other disgruntled students didn't put in enough effort to succeed in business and partly blamed the downturn in the real estate market for their troubles. "The student evaluations received throughout the courses of Trump University were extraordinarily positive," Trump lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said in an interview. "People sought out this program because they wanted to better their lives, supplement their income, change jobs, reach out and try something new and different in their lives to challenge themselves, and that's much of what the courses and instruction offered people." Attorney Jason Forge, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, speaks to the press after a Trump University court hearing in San Diego. Behind him are attorneys Rachel Jensen, Patrick Coughlin and Amber Eck. Mr. Forge, from Robbins Geller, was brought on as a lead litigator in the case in 2013. He'd gained a reputation as a hard-charging assistant U.S. attorney and was part of the team that prosecuted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in the largest bribery scandal in congressional history. He also brought his experience prosecuting white-collar criminals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to the Trump case. "The more I thought about it the more I thought this could be a pretty good RICO case," Mr. Forge said. "The allegations in this case are not that different from the kind of Ponzi schemes I worked on at the U.S. Attorney's Office." The lawyers tried to add a RICO cause of action to the lawsuit, but it was denied. So they filed a separate class-action lawsuit using RICO. Art Cohen, a Northern California businessman and former student who had contacted the attorneys with offers to participate in the case, became the class representative. Case put in national spotlight U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio injected Trump University into the national conversion in February when he leveled a series of attacks against Trump during a televised Republican presidential debate. "I was at the gym. I'm on the elliptical and the guys next to me are talking about, 'Hey, did you hear about Trump University?'" Ms. Zeldes recalled. "The Republicans were using our case to try to get rid of Trump, then it became a household word." Trump's lawyer said the case suddenly became a "political football." "The case was used, unfairly so, with enormous distortions by political opponents to try to take shots at Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump handled himself deftly when asked about it. . . . His opponents were searching for anything they could to undermine his popularity with the public and used the case as a political weapon, and ended up obviously failing," Mr. Petrocelli said. He called the press coverage on the case overwhelmingly biased. "That was probably the biggest challenge, overcoming the negative publicity that portrayed the case in a very unfair and inaccurate light," Mr. Petrocelli said. That's also when Trump lashed out at the judge overseeing the case, calling U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel a "Mexican" who was biased against him for his views on immigration. Judge Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants. But Trump's rise politically did little to change the inner workings of the case, other than present logistical scheduling challenges, the attorneys said. The intense media scrutiny had its effect on Ms. Makaeff, who'd been suffering from health problems and family issues and decided she couldn't take the stress of being a class representative any longer. The judge allowed her to step back from the case. That left as named plaintiffs Chula Vistan Sonny Low, 75, a retired foreign service officer who works at Home Depot to pay off his Trump University debt, John Brown in New York, and J.R. Everett in Florida. Trump gets deposed Attorneys found a more cooperative, engaged Trump in his final two depositions, in December 2015 and January 2016. "He would give much more candid responses than typical of a real polished CEO who knows how to smile and shine you on without really answering questions. That's not his style," said Mr. Forge, who did the questioning. "He gave answers to a lot of questions, and I would not question the sincerity at all. I respected him for giving us very real answers. "It ties back into the persona he has, not as if his persona is a fake one. He wants to be seen, and it's well earned. He's somebody who calls it as he sees it." Ms. Eck attributes Trump's candor to the strong evidence that was piled up against him by that point. "Once you have someone in a box it's easier to get the testimony," she said. She also thinks Trump was anticipating the transcripts of the depositions would be made public -- which they were. The final deposition, at Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, included friendly chit-chat. "He was downright charming. He was very nice," said Mr. Forge. "He asked me on break, 'Are you surprised how I'm doing in the polls?' And I said, 'I have to say, I am.' "'That's OK, so am I,'" Trump responded, according to Forge. The conversation surrounding Trump's campaign continued. "I said, 'A lot of things you are saying are really great. Other things are really scary,'" Mr. Forge said. Trump didn't appear to take offense at the comment, he said. The stunning downfall of San Diego Congressman Cunningham also came up. "I said (Trump) was right on the money about how corrupt the system was, not just the rank corruption that (the Cunningham) case involved, but that so many people told us over the course of that investigation that if Cunningham would have been smarter, he would have worked the system to get just as much money without breaking the law." Both sides get ready for the trial In federal court, the vast majority of civil cases settle. In this case, it was assumed by everyone that the battle would be waged at trial. At the forefront of everyone's mind: How in the world do you pick a jury for a case like this -- two weeks after the defendant just won the most divisive presidential election in modern U.S. history? "Obviously the political angle of it was unprecedented. It was going to be a visceral approach, a lot of gut level determinations," Mr. Forge said. "It was hard to imagine what group of folks we were going to be left with who didn't have strong feelings one way or another about the defendant. . . . From a clinical perspective, it was one of the things I was looking forward to the most. From a litigation perspective, it was a gigantic source of stress." Mr. Petrocelli, who represented the Goldman family in the civil trial against O.J. Simpson, agreed, saying he anticipated a Trump jury to be even more challenging to select. In the end, it didn't matter. Days after Trump was elected, Judge Curiel strongly urged both sides to meet with U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in an attempt to settle. The parties met about a week later in an intensive mediation session. Each side sat in separate rooms, and Miller would go back and forth. Neither side exchanged dollar amounts. Judge Miller was the only one with that information. "Both sides took a tremendous amount of trust in Judge Miller," Mr. Forge said. It worked. The parties looped in the New York Attorney General's Office -- which in 2013 filed a similar lawsuit against Trump University -- and a $25 million settlement was reached resolving all three cases. "Mr. Trump felt it was in the best interests of the public and his duty to the office of the presidency to settle all the cases, even though we felt very confident in the merits of our position," Mr. Petrocelli said. Settlement also meant avoiding protracted appeals that would have been likely in the case. In the two San Diego cases, the 7,000 or so class members will be able to recover at least half of the money they spent on Trump University, possibly more. The plaintiffs lawyers agreed not to take any costs or fees -- a loss in the millions. "The decision came from the very top of our firm. It was not a demand made," Ms. Jensen said. "To make sure as a class they can recover the maximum amount, make sure our fees did not get in the way of allowing this to settle so our country could move on." Attorney Alreen Haeggquist said it was a difficult decision, but the right one. "It's not like a bill goes out at the end of every month. No one is paying for your time. When you're with a small firm, you struggle with having to keep it all going, paying support staff and employees and keep the lights on while doing this kind of work." Does this settlement mean Trump may be more willing to resolve the myriad other lawsuits pending against him? "If anyone thinks this sets the precedent to cause him to roll over, I strongly advise them to think again," Mr. Forge said. UBS FINANCIAL: Pretrial, Settlement Conference Moved to March 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CARMELO ROMAN, RICARDO ROMAN-RIVERA and SDM HOLDINGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. OF PUERTO RICO; UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO INVESTORS TAX- FREE FUND IV, INC.; PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND III, INC.; PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND V, INC.; PUERTO RICO INVESTORS BOND FUND I, INC.; PUERTO RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND, INC.; PUERTO RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND II, INC.; MIGUEL A. FERRER; CARLOS J. ORTIZ, Defendants, Civil No. 12-1663CCC (D.P.R.), Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo has entered an order resetting: -- a pre-trial/settlement conference to March 7, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.; and -- a jury trial to April 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4. Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo issued a statement of reasons on her September 30, 2016 order adopting the U.S. Magistrate Judge's March 1, 2016 Report and Recommendation (R&R) on class certification in the case. The named plaintiffs in Civil No. 12-1663(CCC), Carmelo Roman, Ricardo Roman-Rivera and SDM Holdings, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed the action on August 13, 2012. It was typified as a "Class Action Complaint" and included 10 defendants: two corporate defendants, UBS Services Inc. of Puerto Rico, a broker dealer and a subsidiary of UBS Financial Services, Inc., (UBSFS) and UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, (UBST); individual defendants, Miguel A. Ferrer and Carlos J. Ortiz, chairman/CEO and managing director of UBSPR, and six closed-end management investment companies, identified as defendants Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I, Inc., Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond, Inc., and Puerto Rico Portfolio Bond II, Inc. (collectively "the Funds). All of the allegations of the Complaint are tied to a scheme to defraud perpetrated by the corporate and the individual defendants relating to the marketing and sale of closed-end funds to plaintiffs and other investors similarly situated. The claims were brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10(b)-5. Upon motion for consolidation, the action was consolidated by Judge Besosa with Civil No. 12-1849(CCC), brought by Onnasis Corporation and Julio Tormes-Rodriguez which named seven additional closed-end funds as defendants. However, on November 10, 2014, Onnasis and Tormes filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, which was granted by the Court on November 26, 2014. The Court then entered an order on February 3, 2015 in Civil No. 12-1663(CCC), the sole remaining action, filed by Roman, Roman- Rivera and SDM, striking as unnecessary and to avoid confusion: Consolidated Amended Complaint and Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. Roman, Roman-Rivera and SDM sought reconsideration of the order which request was denied. They then argued that U.S. Magistrate- Judge McGiverin used the wrong complaint on the class certification issue and that he had to use the stricken Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (SCAC) instead of the original complaint that governed the plaintiffs' claims. Judge Cerezo found no justification to modify the Court's February 3, 2015 denial. The judge found that, in any event, the final disposition of the issues referred to the U.S. Magistrate-Judge on the class certification request remains unaltered whether the analysis is made utilizing the original complaint filed by the plaintiffs in Civil No. 12-1663(CCC) or the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint later filed in the two consolidated actions. The judge noted that throughout their original class action complaint, the one that governs proceedings pursuant to the February 3, 2015 Order, and also in the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, submitted by way of footnote number 3 in their class certification motion, the plaintiffs have repeated a particular pattern of conduct incurred by UBSPR and UBSFS to defraud them as investors by manipulative tactics. Judge Cerezo also noted that the parties were granted a period to conduct class certification discovery by June 10, 2015, before referral of the class certification motion to the U.S. Magistrate- Judge. The judge found that there is nothing in the report of the plaintiffs' expert nor do plaintiffs point to any specific data or opinion by their expert that alters the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the U.S. Magistrate-Judge in his R&R. The R&R sets forth the following basic findings of fact relevant to plaintiffs' request for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), highlighting that Rule 23(b)(3) has two additional prerequisites not included in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): "that [1] the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and [2] that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." (1) The Funds were not traded on a public exchange and did not trade on an efficient market. (2) UBS-PR sold the Funds through approximately 145 Financial Advisors (FAs), who functioned as brokers for 23 different Funds. (3) The FAs' discussions with customers were individualized to meet the specific needs of each customer, and those discussions were interactive and varied based on each customer's situation, needs, objectives, and questions asked. (4) This being the case, the plaintiffs acknowledged that most, if not all, of investors' information regarding the [Funds] came from their Fas. (5) The plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Edward S. O'Neal, testified that whether an individual investor decided to purchase or sell a [F]und could depend on what the FA told the investor. (6) Testimony from the plaintiffs representing the putative class confirmed that the information each of them had available when purchasing the Funds varied. A full-text copy of Judge Cerezo's November 22, 2016 statement of reasons is available at https://is.gd/kixdnK from Leagle.com. Carmelo Roman, Ricardo Roman-Rivera, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda F. Lawrence -- alawrence@scott-scott.com -- Scott & Scott LLP, pro hac vice, David R. Scott -- david.scott@scott-scott.com - - Scott & Scott LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, The Law Offices of Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, Jennie M. Espada-Ocasio, Espada Esquire Legal Services Psc, Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott- scott.com -- Scott & Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Juan R. Requena- Davila, Andrea Farah -- afarah@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Beth A. Kaswan -- bkaswan@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard P. Rouco, Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco, pro hac vice & Luis E. Minana, Luis E. Minana & Associates. SDM Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda F. Lawrence, Scott & Scott LLP, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, The Law Offices of Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, Jennie M. Espada-Ocasio, Espada Esquire Legal Services Psc, Juan R. Requena-Davila, Andrea Farah, Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard P. Rouco, Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco, pro hac vice & Luis E. Minana, Luis E. Minana & Associates. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, Defendant, represented by Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano -- mauricio.muniz@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges, Paul J. Lockwood -- paul.lockwood@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera -- ubaldo.fernandez@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges & Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts -- salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges. UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, Carlos J. Ortiz, Defendants, represented by Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano, O'Neill & Borges, Nicole A. DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera, O'Neill & Borges & Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges. Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income V, Inc., Defendants, represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, LLC. Miguel A. Ferrer, Defendant, represented by Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie A. Weathers-Lowin, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Enrique G. Figueroa-Llinas, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud, Francis C. Healy, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Guillermo J. Bobonis, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud & Melvin A. Brosterman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice. UBS Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole A. DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera, O'Neill & Borges, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges & Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano, O'Neill & Borges. UBS Financial Services of Puerto Rico Inc., represented by Nicole A. DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges. UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, Carlos J. Ortiz, Consol Defendants, representeds by Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Salvador J. Antonetti- Stutts, O'Neill & Borges. Miguel A. Ferrer, Consol Defendant, represented by Enrique G. Figueroa-Llinas, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud, Guillermo J. Bobonis, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Francis C. Healy, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice & Melvin A. Brosterman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice. Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund, Inc. III, Consol Defendant, represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, LLC & Amelia Cristina O'Neill-Vega, McConnell Valdes, LLC. Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund, Inc. V, Consol Defendant, represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, LLC & Amelia Cristina O'Neill-Vega, McConnell Valdes, LLC. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as RICHARD COTROMANO, BETHANY COTROMANO, FRANK DECARLO, PAULETTE DECARLO, GREGORY DUNSFORD, JENNIFER DUNSFORD, JOYCE FEATHERSTON, BILL FEATHERSTON, ROBERT T. NEWFIELD, TRACY NEWFIELD, JOSEPH ADINOLFE, and KAY SAMSON, Class Representatives, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, Pratt & Whitney Group, A Connecticut Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 9:13-cv-80928-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their motion for class certification of: "all persons who owned residential properties in the Acreage on either August 24, 2009 or February 10, 2010." These dates are tied to specific notices from government agencies respecting the elevated incidence of pediatric cancer at the Acreage, a semi-rural, predominantly residential neighborhood in Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiffs sue for UTC's alleged contamination of their neighborhood. In August 2009, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) declared that the level of pediatric brain tumors in the Acreage was significantly elevated. On February 10, 2010, the Palm Beach County Health Department designated the Acreage as a cancer cluster. Thus, the date upon which a property owner must have owned property in the Acreage to be included within the class is tied to their ownership of the property during the time of the public disclosure of the existence of the cancer cluster. All proposed class Plaintiffs have sustained the same injury. UTC has argued that not all class members have suffered damages. Plaintiffs counter that this argument centers on whether damages require individualized proof. They assert that all members of the proposed class claim a diminution in their property values and ask that those damages be calculated using a mass appraisal methodology. Plaintiffs contend that they have established that individual issues will not predominate over common ones. It is not prerequisite to certification that Plaintiffs submit a trial plan with their class certification motion. If the Court so directs, however, Plaintiffs can and will present a feasible trial plan. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WL0GtQ7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 S.E. 3RD Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 Facsimile (954) 320-9509 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlawoffices.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com - and - Mara R. P. Hatfield, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686 6300 Facsimile: (561) 383 9539 E-mail: mrh@searcylaw.com hatfieldteam@searcylaw.com dtm@searcylaw.com - and - Bryan S. Gowdy, Esq. CREED &GOWDY, P.A. 865 May Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 350 0075 Facsimile: (904) 503 0441 E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com filings@appellate-firm.com The Defendant is represented by: Heather Carney Costanzo, Esq. Gerard Joseph Curley, Jr., Esq. Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Esq. Fabienne E. Fahnestock, Esq. GUNSTER YOAKLEY &STEWART, P.A. 777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 500E West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655 1980 Facsimile: (561) 655 5677 E-mail: Hcostanzo@gunster.com jcurley@gunster.com gschwinghammer@gunster.com jhoppel@gunster.com Pdavid@gunster.com Ffahnestock@gunster.com Ivanegas@gunster.com - and - Alexander L. Groden, Esq. Andrew C. MacNally, Esq. Daniel R. McElroy, Esq. Sean W. Gallagher, Esq. BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT, LLP 54 W Hubbard Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 494 4408 Facsimile: (312) 494 4440 E-mail: alex.groden@bartlit-beck.com andrew.macnally@bartlit-beck.com daniel.mcelroy@bartlit-beck.com sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com USAA CASUALTY: Montana Reverses "Byorth" Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned PETER BYORTH and ANN McKEAN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants and Appellants, No. DA 16-0013 (Mont.), the Supreme Court of Montana reversed the order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court in Yellowstone County which certified the class action pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 23. On April 24, 2015, Peter Byorth and Ann McKean filed a complaint against USAA Casualty Insurance Company alleging breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, section 33-18-201, MCA (UTPA). The plaintiffs argued that USAA's practice of sending medical claims to Auto Injury Solutions (AIS) was "an improper cost containment scheme designed to wrongfully deprive Montana consumers of their first-party medical pay benefits." The plaintiffs sought to recover actual and punitive damages and to enjoin USAA from submitting future claims to AIS for review. On December 29, 2015, the District Court issued an order certifying the proposed class, concluding that "all members of the proposed class, including Byorth and McKean, were subject to the same claims processing procedure of outsourcing claims to AIS." The District Court certified the class as follows: "Under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) the Court certifies the following class: (a) all Montana consumers who (b) were insured by USAA for med pay benefits and (c) who submitted a claim for med pay benefits from April 2007 to April 2015, and (d) had their claim denied in whole or in part following a file review by AIS or because of an asserted coding error." On appeal, the Supreme Court of Montana turned to the four requisites of Rule 23(a). The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court abused its discretion in finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality were satisfied. As to numerosity, the Supreme Court found that very little certification-related discovery is present in the record, and that as a consequence, there is no evidence of the number of claimants who had their claims denied in whole or in part. The Supreme Court also found that the record lacks an evidentiary basis for finding commonality, explaining that the mere act of sending claims to an outside contractor like AIS -- without more - - is not the type of programmatic conduct that satisfies commonality. The Supreme Court pointed out that the question of whether all class members had claims reviewed by AIS is precisely the type of superficial question that fails to demonstrate a common injury. In other words, the question would have to identify the allegedly unlawful, systematic program in place at AIS that causes the denials. Upon a full review of the record, the Supreme Court was unable to locate any evidence of the alleged algorithm employed by AIS to systematically deny claims. Because typicality and commonality overlap to the extent both are measured by the reach of common questions of law or fact, the Supreme Court cannot overlook the fact that the record does not contain evidence of the alleged common question that unites not only the class as a whole, but also the named representatives with the absent class members. USAA did not dispute adequacy on appeal. In a footnote to its opening brief, USAA reserved a potential challenge to the adequacy of the named representatives until it has taken discovery from the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court thus declined to address adequacy further. The District Court did not mention Rule 23(b) until the penultimate page of its certification order. Even then, the District Court did so in passing: "Under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) the Court certifies the following class . . . ." The Supreme Court found it unclear whether the District Court undertook any analysis in determining that the class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3), and therefore concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3) without assessing predominance and superiority. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 22, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/jqNwav from Leagle.com. Ian McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- Kelsey E. Bunkers -- kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com -- Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Bozeman, Montana Jessica G. Scott -- scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellants. John Heenan, Colette B. Davies, Bishop & Heenan, Billings, Montana, for Appellees. USF REDDAWAY: Moss, et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT MOSS and JAMIEL WATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USF REDDAWAY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv- 01541-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.), Robert Moss and Jamiel Watkins move the Court for certification of a class consisting of: "all California residents employed as truck drivers by USF Reddaway, Inc. ('Defendant' or 'Reddaway') in California who held California drivers' licenses, and who were paid, in whole or in part, on the basis of a certain amount per mile during the Class Period from June 30, 2011 through the present" (the "Class", "putative class", or "California line haul drivers"). The case is in connection with Plaintiffs' California Labor Code and unfair competition law claims based on Reddaway's: (1) failure to pay the Class separately and hourly for their time spent in California on rest breaks, pre-trip and post-trip inspections, and completion of work-related paperwork; (2) failure to provide paid rest breaks or pay missed rest break premiums for unpaid rest breaks; (3) issuance of incomplete wage statements to a "wage statement and PAGA subclass" consisting of those putative class members employed by Reddaway from June 30, 2014 to the present; (4) failure to pay compensation due on separation of employment, including unpaid rest break time and pay for the non-driving tasks, triggering penalties to a "waiting time penalty subclass" of putative class members whose employment ended from June 30, 2012 to the present; and (5) unfair business practices. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3TUu0gvb The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 - and - Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601 6766 Facsimile: (310) 295 2385 VENTURE DATA: Bid for Class Certification Sought in "Mey" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. VENTURE DATA, LLC, PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES, the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00123-JPB-JES (N.D. W.Va.), Diana Mey moves for certification of a class defined as: "all persons in the United States to whom, on June 11, August 19, or September 9, 2014, Venture Data placed a call on his or her cellular telephone line, using the Pro-T-S or CFMC dialer, and as part of a Public Opinion Strategies survey. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff' counsel as class counsel A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BgsM7VoT The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345 6555 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com rdonovan@baileyglasser.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738 7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655 1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net VIRGINIA: Study Reports on Driver's License Suspensions ------------------------------------------------------- Frank Green, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that about 38,000 times each year, driving privileges are stripped from Virginians -- not for traffic offenses, but instead for drug offenses. Dubbed a relic of the war on drugs, Virginia law automatically suspends the licenses of anyone convicted of even minor drug offenses, reports a new Prison Policy Initiative study. The study contends the law is counterproductive and unnecessarily burdens low-income offenders by limiting their ability to get or keep a job to pay court fines and costs or child support. The automatic suspensions for drug offenses also are said to jeopardize public safety -- people with suspended licenses caught driving fall deeper into the justice system while police, the courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles are tied up dealing with suspensions unrelated to traffic law enforcement. Driver's license suspensions in Virginia already were in the spotlight from other developments this year: -- A class action lawsuit filed in federal court by the Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center alleges the license suspensions of Virginians unable to pay court fines and costs -- when those who can afford to pay keep their licenses -- is discriminatory and violates constitutional protections. -- A new rule quietly adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court that takes effect in February offers some relief to offenders by requiring all courts in the state to offer defendants unable to pay court fines and costs within 30 days deferred or installment payment plans before suspending their licenses. The new study, "Reinstating Common Sense: How driver's license suspensions for drug offenses unrelated to driving are falling out of favor," says that in 1991, Congress threatened states with a loss of federal highway funds if they did not automatically suspend the licenses of drug offenders. Today, only Washington, D.C., Virginia and 11 other states still automatically suspend licenses -- a total of 190,000 a year. The study reports that in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2015, there were 38,849 suspensions in Virginia for drug convictions unrelated to driving and a similar number the previous year. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, there were 38,130 in the year that ended June 30, 2016. The department said "orders issued" does not equal the total number of customers, since some may have received more than one order. "While a majority of states have opted out of the federal law, 12 states and Washington, D.C., have continued to hurt their own citizens with these needless license suspensions," said Joshua Aiken with the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group. Mr. Aiken said, "The report finds that the burden of these suspensions falls most heavily on low-income people and people of color." The Prison Policy Initiative agrees that possessing a driver's license should reflect responsible driving and that license suspensions are a logical tool for enforcing laws against reckless driving, leaving the scene of a crash and other driving offenses. But the group complains that nationally, 40 percent of license suspensions were for reasons not related to driving. "In some states, littering, burning trash, skipping school and unpaid student loans result in driver's license suspensions. Most states suspend driver's licenses for unpaid court fines and fees and failure to pay child support," the report said. According to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, a snapshot of the number and types of license suspensions, as of Sept. 3, shows there were 10,869 for non-motor vehicle drug suspensions; 20,746 for failure to satisfy court judgments; and 7,989 for failure to pay child support. In court papers filed this year, the Virginia Attorney General's Office said the suspension of licenses to protect highway safety is a legitimate governmental purpose and so are suspensions for failure to pay court fines and costs, because they assist courts in enforcing court orders. Concerning suspension for nondriver-related issues, Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring concedes, "There is wide disagreement on the effectiveness of the sanction. Some say it is regressive and results in disparate impact on the disadvantaged." And, he said, "I tend to agree." A DMV spokeswoman explained that state law automatically requires the department to revoke administratively the "driving privilege" for six months for someone convicted of any nondriving drug crime -- even a misdemeanor possession charge with no jail time. Defendants can apply to the court for a restricted license that permits driving to work, for example. The department said that of the 38,000 drug-related suspensions in the year that ended June 30, 10,450 were granted restricted privileges at the time of the convictions. The Prison Policy Initiative argues that restricted licenses are not a substantive solution to unnecessarily suspended licenses. In some states, the process for winning a restricted license can be longer than the suspension. In the past three years, five state legislatures -- in Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia, Delaware and Indiana -- have voted to abolish automatic suspensions, the study says. At least one related bill has been filed for the upcoming General Assembly session in Virginia. Introduced by state Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, the proposal would not strip adults convicted of simple marijuana possession of their license. It would be contingent on written assurance from the U.S. Department of Transportation that Virginia will not lose any federal funds. The Prison Policy Initiative study notes that a 2013 best practices guide by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators reported: "It was estimated that as many as three- fourths of suspended or revoked drivers continue to drive. This fact indicates that driver license suspension is no longer the solution to enforce compliance." "The costs of arresting, processing, administering and enforcing social nonconformance-related driver license suspensions create a significant strain on budgets and other resources and detract from highway and public safety priorities," the association wrote. The guide recommends that state legislators repeal laws requiring the suspension of licenses for nontraffic safety reasons. Angela Ciolfi, senior attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center, which filed the class action suit on behalf of four plaintiffs in July, said their case is solely about suspensions for failure to pay court debt due to the inability to pay -- and not suspension as a result of sentencing for drugs or any other reason. "We are focused on the punishment of poverty as such and the cascading harms that flow from driving people further into debt when they can't meet their basic needs," she said. Among other things, the suit alleges that courts issuing suspensions for failure to pay court costs and fines fail to take into account a debtor's ability to pay. The justice center said that in the year that ended June 30, 2015, the Virginia DMV issued 366,773 orders of driver's license suspensions resulting from unpaid court fines or costs -- more than one-third of which were for offenses unrelated to driving. Most of those affected are low-income drivers. The loss of a license can mean the loss of the only way to reach work. As a result, many people are forced to choose between losing their jobs or risking getting locked up for driving illegally. Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice waded into the case by filing a brief that contends that suspending a driver's license is unconstitutional if it is done without providing due process and without assessing whether the individual's failure to pay was willful or the result of an inability to pay. In its response opposing the suit, the Virginia Attorney General's Office wrote that under Virginia law, "any individual who fails to pay court-imposed fines and costs will have his driver's license suspended, regardless of income, race, gender, nationality, or other trait." Absent dissimilar treatment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is not at issue, the state lawyers argued. "Although Plaintiffs have set forth what could be described as a persuasive argument that courts should give indigent criminal defendants greater latitude with respect to the imposition or repayment of fines and costs, what they have presented is, at its heart, a policy argument -- and this is not a policymaking forum. It is a court of law," the office wrote to U.S. District Judge Norman Moon. The Attorney General's Office recently filed another motion to dismiss the suit -- this one in light of a new rule by the Virginia Supreme Court. The rule was adopted by the justices last month and takes effect in February. Among other things, the rule requires a judge to take into account a defendant's financial resources and obligations, including indigence, as well as anything owed in other courts when determining the amount and length of time to pay court fines and costs under a deferred or installment payment plan. Randolph Rollins, founder and president of Drive to Work, a charitable organization that helps people win back their licenses, said the current state law allows judges to defer payment of fines and costs to a later date or to set up an installment plan for an offender to avoid suspending his or her license. Prior to the new rule, Rollins, the secretary of public safety in the administration of Gov. Douglas Wilder, said, "Each individual court made its own decisions. Some of them didn't give pay plans at all. Some of them gave pay plans that were very liberal. Others were very restrictive about it." The rule standardizes things and also tells courts that where available, "the court should liberally use community service work as an option to defray fines and costs, especially where the defendant is unable to make substantial payments." The Attorney General's Office argues: "The Virginia Supreme Court, therefore, has enacted the very policy Plaintiffs seek. For this reason, there is no further relief that could or should issue in this case and these proceedings are moot." Ms. Ciolfi welcomes the new rule but strongly disagrees that it fixes the problem targeted by the suit. Rather, she said, it acknowledges that the system is broken. "The Supreme Court deserves our praise for its leadership in helping people avoid the court debt trap. If the rules are implemented in both letter and spirit, they offer tremendous potential to stem the tide of drivers entering the license-for- payment pipeline," Ms. Ciolfi said. But she said the rule does not "alter the fundamental flaw in the license-for-payment system, which is the mandatory and automatic nature of the driver's license suspension statute." Rollins, with Drive to Work, believes the new rule "is a pretty significant development." VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Okimoto Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- in the lawsuit titled RICHARD THOMAS OKIMOTO, on his behalf, and for all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE and VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Case No. 6:16-cv-00075-NKM (W.D. Va.), Mr. Richard Okimoto moves the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "all employees employed by the Defendants who have worked two contemporaneous jobs for Defendants in which the primary duty of their employment remained a non-exempt positions at any point in the last three years". In the alternative, should the Court find the definition of the collective action members too expansive, the Plaintiff moves that the class includes: "all employees employed by the Defendants who have worked two contemporaneous jobs for Defendants in which one position was that of Adjunct Instructor and in which the primary duty of their employment remained a non-exempt position at any point in the last 3 years". The Plaintiff further moves the Court to facilitate notice by ordering Defendants to provide the names and addresses of all such persons to undersigned counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6flA9Gem The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Strelka, Esq. STRLEKA LAW OFFICE, PC 119 Norfolk Avenue., S.W. Suite 330, Warehouse Row Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: 540 283 0802 E-mail: thomas@strelka.com leigh@strelka.com VOLKSWAGEN: EU to Take Action v. 7 Member States Over Emissions --------------------------------------------------------------- JURIS reports that the European Commission on Dec. 8 announced plans to take action against seven member states for failing to fulfill their obligations under EU law when they did not set up penalty systems to deter manufacturers from violating the legislation, particularly after Volkswagen (VW) [corporate website] was investigated for implementing software in its vehicles that could cheat emissions tests. The Commission will take action against Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and the UK because they issued approvals for VW vehicles and did not enforce the provisions on penalties against the manufacturer after it was discovered they cheated the emissions tests. Germany and the UK have further been accused of not disclosing to the Commission information it requested concerning nitrogen oxide emissions and Volkswagen irregularities. Notices were also sent to Czech Republic, Greece and Lithuania because they have not introduced penalty systems against car manufacturers in their national laws. VW is facing legal difficulty around the world over the emissions scandal. South Korea announced on Dec. 7 that it plans to fine VW over false advertising. In October, A Spanish court ordered Volkswagen to pay damages to a VW vehicle owner who purchased his car in 2011. A US judge approved a $14.7 billion settlement in October between VW and the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the state of California and car owners who filed a class action lawsuit over the company's emissions scandal. In September a German court said VW faces over USD $8.2 billion in damage claims from investors. That same month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued VW and its local subsidiary for misleading customers. In August a district court in Germany ruled that a collective complaint against VW may move forward. Like US-style class-action lawsuits, the collective complaint was launched on behalf of multiple investors who lost money following the diesel emissions cheating scandal. Last March the US FTC filed suit against VW for false advertising. WACKENHUT CORP: Statistical Sampling Allowed to Certify Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Tochner, Esq. -- stuart.tochner@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for JDSupra, reports that statistical sampling has always been an effective and efficient way for plaintiffs to establish class action liability in California. After some hope that a 2011 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States might hamper that ability, a California appellate court has reaffirmed statistical sampling as a viable method available to class action plaintiffs to prove their cases. On November 21, 2016, California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled that wage-and-hour plaintiffs are not barred from using a sample of statistical evidence as a basis to prove class certification and permitted the use of such evidence in a class action brought by a class of 10,000 to 13,000 security officers against their employer. The decision in Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp., B244383 (November 21, 2016) limited the application of the Supreme Court's employer- friendly decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 564 U.S. 338 (2011). In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court had reversed a grant of class certification as to 1.5 million female employees alleging gender discrimination, ruling that a lower court's reliance upon statistical sampling had been misplaced. The trial court in Lubin had initially granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, but then reversed itself, based upon the then-newly decided Wal- Mart case. The Second District reversed that decision, restoring instead the trial court's original decision to certify the class. The plaintiffs in Lubin alleged that the putative class members had signed written on-duty meal period agreements that did not include certain required revocation language. Rather than review each relevant agreement, the parties agreed to a statistical sampling of agreements, and to extrapolate the extent of compliant language to the entire class. After Wal-Mart was decided, however, the employer moved to decertify the class, contending that statistical sampling was now improper. The trial court agreed, and decertified the class. Quoting a new Supreme Court case from 2016, the Second District in Lubin ruled that "Wal-Mart does not 'stand for the broad proposition that a representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing classwide liability.'" Rather, the admissibility of statistical sampling depends "on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action." Statistical sampling, the court concluded, may not have been sufficiently reliable in the Wal-Mart case (which was a Title VII gender discrimination case), but it was sufficiently in probative in this wage-and-hour matter. Lubin therefore clarifies that statistical sampling can still be used in limited circumstances to establish liability, subject to the relevancy concerns articulated in Wal-Mart. It is one more weapon available to plaintiffs' attorneys to prove class action claims, and is not summarily barred as the trial court had held in this case. WAL-MART STORES: Court Nixes Female Employee's Gender Bias Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Cronin Fisk and Della Hasselle, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. convinced a Louisiana jury it didn't discriminate against a woman who said she was denied promotions in a first test trial of hundreds of claims after the retailer won a U.S. Supreme Court decision barring a nationwide class action. The New Orleans jury on Dec. 7 rejected a claim by Ravion Fairley, who alleged that she was paid less than men in identical positions and wasn't offered a higher-paying job as a meat cutter while working for the company because Wal-Mart "adhered to strict gender-segregated roles." Wal-Mart countered that Ms. Fairley was paid based on her experience, didn't ask for the promotion and had admitted being afraid of the cutting saws used by butchers. Ms. Fairley's complaint is one of about 2,000 claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging bias in pay and promotions after the national class action was discarded, according to plaintiffs' lawyers. Ms. Fairley filed her lawsuit last year after the EEOC issued a letter allowing her to sue. "We are extremely disappointed in the result," said Matthew Morgan, a lawyer for Ms. Fairley. "We had hoped, obviously, for a different outcome. We are mostly disappointed for our client." Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the company had treated and compensated Fairley appropriately and "consistent with the law.'' "We have had strong policies against discrimination for many years and have a long history of providing advancement opportunities for our associates," Mr. Hargrove said in an e-mailed statement. Five more cases are scheduled for trial over the next six months, each claiming bias going back as far as 1999. Plaintiffs' lawyers will be using Fairley's case and the other trials to decide how to pursue the hundreds of claims remaining with the EEOC. 'Extraordinary Challenge' Pursuing a claim in which the alleged discrimination happened more than a decade ago is an "extraordinary challenge," said attorney Cyrus Mehri, who represents plaintiffs in employment cases and isn't involved in the Wal- Mart litigation. "Evidence gets stale, memories fade, and the harm doesn't seem that urgent," he said in a phone interview. Some of the remaining women could win, but "there's a headwind against all these cases," Mr. Mehri said. Wal-Mart had sought to dismiss the suits, citing delays in filing them. The plaintiffs said the statute of limitations didn't apply because the claims were put on hold while the women's class action was pending. The attempted class action began in 2001 when six current and former Wal-Mart workers sued the company claiming systemic discrimination against women in pay and promotions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 reversed lower-court decisions allowing the women to sue as a group on behalf of about 1.5 million workers. The court found the women failed to point to a common corporate policy that led to gender discrimination at thousands of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the U.S. California, Texas Plaintiffs' lawyers made multiple attempts at regional class actions, including filings in California, Texas and Florida. They had little success as judges found the new suits also didn't meet required standards for class actions. Only one of these cases remains, brought in Tennessee for women who work in stores in that state and parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi. It was also initially dismissed but revived by a federal appeals court. Ms. Fairley complained that when she worked in the meat department in the Wal-Mart's Covington, Louisiana, store, "men were meat cutters and women were meat wrappers, and meat wrappers made less," according to court papers. "There was only one female meat cutter during Fairley's tenure and she was harassed by her male coworkers, who stated, 'It just didn't look right for a woman to be cutting the meat.'" This woman, Ms. Fairley said, was told meat cutting was a "male's job." Ms. Fairley claims she was excluded from higher-earning positions and paid less than males in the same jobs while working for Wal- Mart from 1997 to 2005. She said she began doing the work of a lead associate in the seafood department, but didn't get the title or a management-level raise and was paid less than male employees under her. A male employee doing similar work made $6 to $7 more per hour than she did, Mr. Morgan, her lawyer, told jurors on Dec. 5. She was paid less than she deserved, Ms. Fairley testified at trial on Dec. 7. "It was disappointing to know I was doing all of this work and not even getting paid for it.'' Wal-Mart argued there was no discrimination and women weren't excluded. "This case has nothing to do with equal pay for equal work," Wal-Mart attorney Stephen Beiser told the jury on Dec. 5. "Ms. Fairley wants to be paid now, not years ago, the same as people did for completely different jobs that required completely different skill levels," he said. "This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with merit." The case is Fairley v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 15-cv-00462, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans). WALLACE & RUSH: Court Denied FLSA Class Certification Bid as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DE'MARCUS THOMAS v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Brian A. Jackson entered an order: 1. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor standards Act collective class action and send notice to the Class; 2. denying as moot Defendant's motion for partial dismissal; 3. denying as moot Defendant's motion to strike class allegations; and 4. denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file reply memorandum; A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RCeliNJd WELLS FARGO: Closed-Door Arbitration Draws Legislative Backlash --------------------------------------------------------------- Kartikay Mehrotra, Laura J Keller and Romy Varghese, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Wells Fargo & Co.'s attempt to force aggrieved customers into closed-door arbitration over its fake- accounts scandal is drawing a legislative backlash in its home state of California and risks subjecting the bank to another round as a public punching bag. Following pledges at Capitol Hill hearings and in advertisements that it would rebuild customer trust, the San Francisco-based lender moved to avoid facing many claims in open court. Even as Donald Trump's surprise election may ease pressure from Washington, the arbitration issue injects new life into the scandal and could further tarnish the firm's reputation. "It goes once again to the bank's not following the rules, and they get away with it at the detriment of the consumer," Ed Mills, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, said in an interview. "It's a concern that Wells Fargo is trying to have it both ways." California state Senator Bill Dodd, a Democrat, has responded to Wells Fargo's arbitration stance, introducing a bill this month to override forced-arbitration clauses in contracts created through fraud. He said his legislation is, in part, a pushback against likely attempts to weaken U.S. regulations. "Unfortunately, we're more likely to see an erosion of consumer protection at the federal level over the next several years," Mr. Dodd said. Wells Fargo admitted this year that its bankers may have created millions of fraudulent accounts. It fired thousands of employees, made refunds to customers and agreed to pay fines totaling $185 million. That was followed by congressional hearings and the resignation of Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf. "We are working very hard to undo harm that may have been caused to our customers, including contacting those affected to ensure they still want their accounts, reimbursing improper fees and issuing refunds," Wells Fargo spokeswoman Jennifer Dunn said in an e-mailed statement. "We want to make sure that no Wells Fargo customer loses a single penny because of these issues." 'Basic Fairness' In setting up the fake accounts, bank employees entered existing customers into new contracts requiring that any related disputes be handled in private. At issue is whether such terms are binding on customers for bogus accounts. "It's a question of basic fairness, that a large bank is denying you some of your legal rights based upon something you never signed," Mr. Mills said. "That probably reignites some of the populist angst against the bank that is still simmering." In a class-action complaint filed in October in Los Angeles federal court, consumers are demanding monetary damages. They say they were victimized by a bank intent on bolstering its balance sheet. While individual damages could be under $100, the cost of paying a class comprising the owners of millions of fraudulent accounts exponentially increases the price tag of litigation. That begins to explain why Wells Fargo would prefer to avoid class-action disputes, said Ken Feinberg, the Obama administration's former paymaster who mediated resolution of disputes with BP Plc, General Motors Co. and Volkswagen AG. 'Riskiest' Path "If they can get away with it, it's sound policy -- but the path they're currently following is also the riskiest," said Mr. Feinberg. "It's hard to imagine the court won't ultimately say that the arbitration clauses are unconscionable." Wells Fargo considers arbitration a "last resort" when resolving customer disputes, according to Dunn. She said that while arbitration bars customers from pursuing class-action cases, it doesn't block them from other legal venues like small claims court. Arbitration is faster and cheaper than litigation, she said. In the three months since Wells Fargo settled with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it has forfeited business and lost its title as the world's most valuable bank to rival JPMorgan Chase & Co. The lender's executives twice endured hours-long grillings on Capitol Hill, including one from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who called for the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the bank. Those agencies are investigating, as are another federal department, state attorneys general, prosecutors' offices and congressional committees. Wells Fargo's stock, which has gained 5.4 percent for the year, is still the worst performer among the 10 largest U.S. banks and trails the 27 percent rise of the KBW Bank Index. Lawsuits Multiply Attorneys have filed at least 30 lawsuits in state and federal courts since Wells Fargo acknowledged its malfeasance, with fresh litigation still finding its way to court. Three consumer disputes are at varying stages. One case in a California district court was voluntarily dismissed within two weeks of its filing, which could be an indication of a settlement or private arbitration. The bank's home state isn't proving hospitable. Democrats won a two-thirds majority in the California Legislature last month, and now hold a so-called supermajority in both houses. Even if Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, opposed them, lawmakers can set their agenda almost at will without the support of Republicans. California's John Chiang, the first state treasurer to pull business from Wells Fargo because of the fake-accounts controversy, is considering action on arbitration, said his spokesman, Marc Lifsher. Democrats on Capitol Hill have also raised concerns about Wells Fargo's use of forced arbitration. Lawmakers led by Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, proposed legislation that would allow the customers' lawsuits. But President-elect Trump's victory and the Republican control of Congress may lead to less regulation, dimming the bill's prospects. Trump's win has complicated the CFPB's efforts to curb mandatory arbitration agreements that consumers make with financial-services companies. The bureau proposed a rule earlier this year that would circumvent those clauses by allowing groups of people to join together to pursue class-action lawsuits when they feel they've been wronged. Trump could make that more difficult. Mr. Dodd, the California lawmaker, said he and his colleagues should work to counter Washington's moves. "It's more important than ever for California to be a national leader on protecting consumers," he said. XEROX CORPORATION: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firms, announces a class action against Xerox Corporation concerning possible violations of federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Xerox shares between April 23, 2012 and October 23, 2015, are reminded to contact the firm before the December 23, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, Xerox repeatedly touted its new software product, Health Enterprise, as an important growth area for the Company, which would operate at low cost and high profit margin. Xerox's statements pertaining to the profitability and growth prospects of the Health Enterprise business were materially false and misleading because Xerox failed to disclose: that the Company's existing Health Enterprise projects were experiencing major delays and cost overruns; that Xerox would be unable to deliver Health Enterprise implementations at sustainable profits; and that as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. On October 26, 2015, Xerox released its third quarter 2015 financial results, which were disappointing due to costs associated with the implementation of Health Enterprise and the termination of Health Enterprise contracts with two state agencies. When this news was disclosed, shares of Xerox fell in value, causing investors harm. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. YAHOO! INC: 5 of 23 Data Breach Suits Joined in San Jose Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that five of at least 23 lawsuits against Yahoo over its record-setting and controversial data breach have been consolidated into one suit, set to be heard in federal court in San Jose. Yahoo, which is in the midst of a $4.8 billion sale to Verizon, in September announced that hackers in 2014 had stolen personal information from at least 500 million user accounts. The firm said at the time that it had discovered the breach, believed to be the largest data theft in history, during a "recent" investigation. But last month in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Yahoo admitted it had known about the breach, which it has blamed on a state-sponsored actor, in 2014. And the company in the filing said that the Verizon sale could fall through. Within hours of Yahoo's original announcement in September about the hacking, the first suit was filed. The following day, Ronald Schwartz, identified as a Yahoo user from New York, filed a similar lawsuit, also seeking class-action status, against Yahoo. More such actions followed. On Dec. 7, a panel of federal judges combined those two cases and three others into one suit, and set it to be heard in U.S. district court in San Jose under Judge Lucy Koh. Four of the suits were filed originally in California, and one in Illinois. "These actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses," the panel said. "Yahoo's corporate headquarters is located within the district, and therefore relevant documents and witnesses are likely to be located there." The five lawsuits have in common questions about Yahoo's protection of users' data; the company's investigation of the breach; the "alleged delay in disclosing the breach;" and the nature of the alleged damages, the panel said. Schwartz, in his suit, called Yahoo "grossly negligent" in its handling of user data. The first suit, filed in San Diego the day Yahoo revealed the hack, had been filed by plaintiffs who before the revelation had suspected their personal data had been stolen somehow. "They were trying to figure out how people were accessing their information," their lawyer David Casey told the Mercury News at the time. "When this (breach) became public, they put two and two together." Meanwhile, the fate of Yahoo remains uncertain. The sale was to close in the first quarter of next year. Many analysts believe that if the sale to Verizon does go through, Verizon will pay a discounted price because of the breach and Yahoo's response to it. ZIMBABWE: Lawyers Mull Class Action Over Exorbitant Bank Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zimbabwe Star reports that lawyers in Zimbabwe, currently facing crippling liquidity constraints, are planning to file a class action against commercial banks in an attempt to force them to reduce what they call exorbitant charges. One of the lawyers, Fadzai Mahere, said in a tweet on Dec. 10, "I met with a team of lawyers prepared to drive a class action against the banks to challenge, inter alia (among other things), the grossly unreasonable and extortionate bank charges, and the irrational, arbitrary and capricious withdrawal limits." ZOO PRINTING: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Corrales, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zoo Printing, Inc., DDZ Inc., Printbuyer LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC643755 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements. The Defendants own and operate a printing company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figtieroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213)488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 * Environmental Class Actions Expected to Grow in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------- Jason Betts, Esq. -- Jason.Betts@hsf.com -- and Christine Tran, Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills, in an article for Australian Financial Review, report that most Australians are familiar with a class action involving contaminated water made famous by the Hollywood films A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich. The latter claim against power company, Pacific Gas, secured damages of $US333 million -- one of the biggest US settlements at the time. Environmental class action litigation has dominated litigation growth in the United States and Canada for years. The scene is set for these kinds of cases -- focused on economic loss -- to grow in Australia. Having traditionally taken a backseat to shareholder and consumer class actions, environmental toxic torts are firmly back on the litigation agenda in Australia. Class action promoters such as IMF Bentham, Shine Lawyers and Slater & Gordon are already investigating possible environmental toxic tort class actions in Australia and that trend can be expected to continue. By shifting away from personal injury to economic loss claims, these actions may have a greater chance of success. There is increasing publicity about the alleged adverse health effects of chemicals used in Australia across a range of industries, including fire suppression foam, fabric protectants and industrial insulators. Product innovation has increased the prevalence of synthetic chemical substances in Australia, sparking the interest of plaintiffs' law firms and class action funders to explore the possibility of environmental toxic tort class actions alleging contamination of the surrounding environment. In Australia, toxic torts traditionally targeted personal injuries said to be caused by exposure to chemical substances and pollutants. This type of claim is a nice fit for the class action vehicle: alleged damage to a large number of people or even entire communities; potential social impacts that attract media attention; and claims that are too expensive to run individually, but in aggregate justify the costs of class action proceedings. Yet despite this fit, toxic torts have been slow to gain a foothold in the Australian litigation environment, predominantly because the links between chemical exposure and personal injury have been tenuous, relying on difficult or developing epidemiological and scientific evidence. Claims riskier than others In many cases the harms manifested -- cancers, infections, birth defects -- are present in normal populations and therefore cannot be persuasively traced back to the chemical exposure. Confounding factors also arise, for example individuals exhibiting hereditary risks to certain diseases or pre-existing conditions that complicate the causal analysis. This makes the claims riskier than other forms of class actions, and less attractive to plaintiffs' law firms and funders as a result. Aware of these pitfalls, promoters of the next wave of toxic tort class actions have adapted by concentrating on economic loss, rather than personal injuries. Beyond the potential human effects, the leakage or release of toxic substances into groundwater and waterways has the capacity to impair property values, spoil livestock and impede marine and fishing activities. This may translate into economic loss for local property owners and business (e.g. farmers, fishermen, tourism-related operators) impacted financially by the contamination. Broader economic loss may exist, particularly if contaminations adversely affect the local economy or reduce existing services available to residents, further impairing property values. Australian companies may be vulnerable to environmental claims alleging private nuisance given that the law has long recognised claims relating to the emission of odours, dust and chemical particles, noise and other pollutants. Potential liability is not limited to those who created the pollution, but may apply to companies that have adopted it, negligently permitted it to continue, or failed to remedy the nuisance. Given some of the forecast growth in consumer contact claims -- a predicted area of exponential growth -- has been dampened by the High Court's recent bank fees decision, environmental toxic torts may become an area of focus and growth for promoters of class actions looking for new frontiers. Funders will certainly be buoyed by the recent Full Federal Court decision in support of a "common fund" doctrine, which makes it easier to bring such claims on a funded basis. Australian corporations would be wise to take stock of their environmental compliance measures. * Retirement Plan Class Action Trend to Continue in 2017 -------------------------------------------------------- Brian M. Kalish, writing for Employee Benefit Adviser, reports that the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule drove the past year in retirement and, despite uncertainty as to how President- elect Trump will approach the rule, it is still expected to have a big impact on retirement plans as it takes effect in April 2017. As for the rest of the retirement world, 2016 will be remembered as a year of several class-action lawsuits against mostly large plans. Nevin Adams, chief of marketing and communications at the Arlington, Va.-based industry trade group the American Retirement Association, urges advisers to be ready for the fiduciary rule to begin as planned, as Trump has not said anything about the fiduciary rule. Any changes to the rule are "probably a second- tier effort, so [the fiduciary rule] will come into play the way it is laid out and [may] get tweaked later," Mr. Adams says. He thinks tweaks, which he notes is wild speculation, may be around the best interest contract exemption and how it applies and conditions associated with it. "The sense is this is still pretty [difficult] and compliance will be an issue," he says. This past year as the fiduciary rule developed offered a "very important opportunity to start -- yet again -- a conversation around fiduciary best practices and [to] clarify rules with clients and prospects," says Shelby George, SVP of advisor services at Rochester, N.Y.-based investment manager Manning & Napier. Alex Assaley, principal and lead adviser for retirement plans at Bethesda, Md.-based AFS 401(k) Retirement Services, says that while multiple people in the industry, including himself, believe the structure of the fiduciary rule is a good thing, it is going to "drastically change the industry and some things that are going to be changed are for the better, in terms of removing conflict of inflict and ensuring there is proper disclosure around relationships and conflicts of interests." Lawsuits In addition to the industry-changing fiduciary rule, 2016 can be also be summed up as a year of major lawsuit against plans, "centered around high-cost, poor-performing investments riddled with hidden fees and used to pay vendors and promote conflicts of interests," says Brian Menickella, co-founder and managing partner at King of Prussia, Pa.-based financial services firm The Beacon Group of Companies. While suits against plans have gone on for a decade, there was a fresh wave of litigation this year, with arguments moving beyond allegations of charging excessive fees to allegations of not using the lowest class of mutual funds, Adams adds. The court cases reveal "the levels of abuse that are prevalent in the 401(k) plans of [the] biggest companies. But the sheer volume of them in alarming," Mr. Menickella explains. "No institution has been exempt; large companies, small companies and even some of the most respected universities have been targeted. This has resulted in a tsunami of lawsuits." In August, lawsuits were filed against Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and New York University after the institutions allegedly made their employees pay excessive fees for retirement plans, according to The Wall Street Journal. "The common denominator in all the cases was that the compensation models to advisers were conflicted," explains Mr. Menickella. "Specifically, advisers . . . were not required to put their clients' best interest above their own." As a result of these suits, the term fiduciary became more of a buzzword, leading clients to ask more questions, a trend Mr. Menickella expects to continue into 2017. In addition, the lawsuits, Mr. Menickella says, have led to employees becoming smarter about their retirement and looking for employers to step up their game due the influx of 2016 401(k) class-action suits. Mr. Assaley predicts that these suits may also lead to a trend of moving to low-cost index funds, which strip out revenue sharing. His firm has moved all clients to a zero revenue-sharing environment, where his fees are charged as a line item. "The raised consciousness trend started in 2016 and will increase in 2017 with the implementation of the fiduciary rule," Mr. Menickella explains. "The trend is that people are becoming more aware and demanding their advisers act in a best interest capacity." Adams expects these suits to continue through 2017, and may begin against smaller plans. "Hopefully that has your attention," he says. "The whole industry will tell you big plans today, but little plans tomorrow." Other issues Among other 2016 issues in retirement were: -- Higher gains: In Fidelity's latest quarterly analysis in November, it found that the average account balance of a 15-year saver was $331,200, up from $43,900 in 2001. -- Emphasis on retirement: As a result of the Affordable Care Act, the appeal of healthcare benefits to employees has decreased, while simultaneously increasing the importance of retirement plans as a tool to recruit and retain employees, according to a survey. A September survey by Harris Poll on behalf of Nationwide found that 29% of owners of businesses with fewer than 300 employees that offer 401(k) plans and plan to increase contributions say that they are doing so because the ACA has made health benefits less attractive to employees. Further, 43% of business owners who plan to increase contributions to their company's 401(k) plan say they are doing so because their plan is now more important for attracting and retaining employees as a result of the ACA. -- Emphasis on financial wellbeing: In its August Retirement Plan Governance Survey, Willis Towers Watson found that employers are increasingly concerned for their employees' financial wellbeing and are planning to take action to help them retire in a timely manner. Many of the employers surveyed responded that they plan to shift resources to financial wellness and retirement readiness over the next couple of years. -- Growth of robo-advisers: Robo-advisers reach all kinds of employees who don't have easy access to financial advice. It combines technology with a human touch to most benefit employees, says Andrew Wank, director of business development at Bloom. 2017 tax reform Looking ahead, a big buzzword in 2017 will be tax reform, American Retirement Association's Adams believes. "We know that President- elect Trump is committed to doing something on tax reform [and] he has a lot of support for that on Capitol Hill," he says. With the last major tax reform in 1986, Mr. Adams predicts that the preferential tax treatment of retirement plans will be a target in this new round of reform. Previous proposals by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, have pointed to a do-it-yourself retirement model, as opposed to the emphasis behind the structure of an employer-based plan, Adams says. Trump told the AARP in an interview that his plan is to pass comprehensive tax reform by "removing carve-outs for special interests and reducing the number of brackets." He also said he would attempt to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and the death tax. Improving the economy and repealing the Dodd-Frank and Affordable Care Acts, he told the AARP, would "bring market forces to bear that will increase competition and lower costs to consumers." The one thing most experts agree on is that nothing will happen immediately. It always takes time for a new administration to gather steam. "Tax reform is our big issue," Mr. Adams says of the American Retirement Association. "We think it will be a big deal and we fully expect it to be battle for people who care about the private sector." ********* 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 * * *