/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170112.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 9
Headlines
44th ST: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
ABHIRUCHI SNACKS: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ABSOLUTE CARE: Faces "Duberry" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: FWK Holdings Sues Over Overpriced Pravastatin
ALERE INC: "Khalid" Securities Lawsuit Transferred to D. Mass.
ALERE INC: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALEXANDER MILNE: Faces "McGill" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces "Rosenberg" Securities Class Action
ALSTON PERSONAL: Faces "Hollis" Suit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Act
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Rogers Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Code
AMERICAN BUILDERS: Portillo Alleges Violation of Civil Rights
AMERICAN CASINO: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Under FLSA, Nev. Wage Laws
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action
AT HOME: Faces "Kholvekov" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: To Appeal VLT Class-Action Certification
BARCLAYS BANK: "Jeffery" Suit Removed to S.D. Ga.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kucharski" Seeks to Enforce Insurance Benefit
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Swanson Alleges Violation of Labor Code
BIG LOTS: "Gunsett" Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
BROCK & SCOTT: Simmons Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
CARRIER CORP: Faces "Koski" Suit Over Sale of Defective Heaters
CATER ONE: "Henry" Suit Alleges Violation of New York Labor Law
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Still Defending Talmer Shareholder Litigation
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bushansky, Sciabacucchi & Nicholl Suits Nixed
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Livonia Employees Suit Remains Stayed
CKA MANAGEMENT: Overtime Pay Sought in "Acevedo" Labor Suit
CLARINS USA: "Fraco" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Law
COSTAL BUILDING: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Nolasco Says
COWBOYS SALOON: Faces "Perera" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT
CVB FINANCIAL: Parties in Shareholder Suit Reached MOU
CVB FINANCIAL: "Morgan" Class Suit in Discovery
DAKOTA PLAINS: Rosen Updates Investors About Suit Filed by Firm
DENNIS E. BLOCK: "Boettcher" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DR. REDDY'S: FWK Holdings Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
DR. REDDY'S: Miami Police Fund Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
DS SERVICES: "Pimienta" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
DYNASTY VI FOOD: Faces "Abuzahrieh" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
ELDER SERVICES: Faces "Fongemie" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Reider" Class Suit in California
ENDOLOGIX INC: "Nguyen" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Law
ERESEARCH TECHNOLOGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Racial Discrimination
ESSENTIA HEALTH: "Morin" Suit Invokes ERISA to Recover Losses
EXPRESS OIL: Faces "Gantt" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
FALLS FESTIVAL: Faces Possible Class Action Following Crowd Crush
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Parties in "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties Negotiating Definitive Settlement
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Defending Raul v. Highlander Case
FISHER SAND AND GRAVEL: "Halkola" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
FOUGERA PHARMA: Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Fluocinonide
GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
GLADE: Freshener Causes Damage to Vehicle's Interior, Suit Says
GROVETOWN CITY: To Pay More Than $1.5MM in Outcome of Lawsuit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Santiago" Suit in S.D. Fla.
HUMANA HEALTH: "Warren" Labor Suit Reassigned to Judge Walker
I.Q. DATA: Faces "Walker" Suit in Western Dist. of Washington
ILLUMINA INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action
ILLUMINA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
ITT: Ch. 7 Trustee Responds to Class Action Complaint
JCS CONSTRUCTION: Subcontractor Sues Over Unpaid Work
JMA ENERGY: "Speed" Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Harter" Injury Suit Consolidated in MDL 2327
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Defend Against "Hillson" Suit
LOUISIANA: Cities Sue DOTD Over Historic August Flooding
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Green, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Perry, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Williams et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Mooneyhan, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Shea, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Washington, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
MCCRORY, AR: Faces "Watlington" Class Suit in E.D. Ark.
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tadepalli" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
NEW BEDFORD: "Perez" Alleges Evasion of Recordkeeping Requirement
NEW YORK, NY: Miller Sues Education Dept. for Overtime Pay
NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Alleges Violations of New York Labor Law
OFFICE DEPOT: "Hecht" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
PARK CITIES: "Carmarck" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Faces "West" Suit in N.D. Ohio
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: "Rembert" Suit Removed to D. Ariz.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit in California
PREFERRED PEDIATRIC: "Fouche" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces "Schupp" Fraud Suit in California
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Evidence Gathering Underway in Wipes Suit
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Wins Final Court Okay
QUEBEC: Could Face Class-Action Lawsuits Over Photo Radar Tickets
SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Deal Reached in "Alexander" Suit
SANOFI US: FWK Files Antitrust Action Over Insulin Glargine
SANZ SCHOOL: "Dettling" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
SCC TRANSPORT: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Martha Stewart Merger Class Suit Underway
SMARTPROCURE LLC: Faces "Transene" Class Action in Florida
SND OPERATING: Faces "Odenbaugh" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
SQUIP INC: Faces "Freed" Class Action in Connecticut
SUMMIT ROOFTOP: "Miller" Suit Alleges Tip Cutting Violates FLSA
TRICO BANCSHARES: Settles Suits by Two Personal Bankers
ULTA SALON: Court Preliminary Approves Moore Class Action Deal
UNITED CEREBRAL: Overtime Pay Sought in "Adams" Labor Suit
UNITED STATES: Risk Corridor Case Certified as Class Action
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: "Heistand" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Faces 3 Class Suits
VESDEL FOOD'S: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
VIKING CLIENT: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
VIRDIG ENTERPRISES: "Rubi" Suit Seeks Wage and Overtime Pay
VORTENS INC: Faces "Cone" Suit Over Defective Toilet Tanks
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Magadia" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Certify 3 Classes in Nikmanesh Suit Nixed
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Granted Class Certification in "Bitner"
ZETA INTERACTIVE: "Earley" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Wage
ZIMMER BIOMET: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
* Supreme Court to Consider Taking up Validity of Suit Waivers
*********
44th ST: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL GUTIERREZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against 44th ST NYC INC. (d/b/a
OVERLOOK), PMJ NYC INC. (d/b/a OVERLOOK AT THE BEACH), PATRICK
EVANGELISTA, AND MARK EVANGELISTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10016 (S.D.N.Y., December 29, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law and "overtime wage order" respectively, and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.
Overlook and Overlook at the Beach are two sports bars/American
restaurants owned by Patrick Evangelista and Mark Evangelista.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
ABHIRUCHI SNACKS: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Del Carmen Gomez Reyes, and Antonio Encarnacion Rosas,
individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Abhiruchi Snacks, Inc. and Sudha Kotapatti,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11731 (N.D. Ill.,
December 30, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged failure
to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees their
earned overtime wages due to them under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Abhiruchi Snacks is a privately held company in Chicago, IL.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: 312-878-1302
E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
ABSOLUTE CARE: Faces "Duberry" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA DUBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ABSOLUTE CARE STAFFING
HEALTH AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01446 (M.D.N.C.,
December 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant employed Plaintiff as home health care workers who
provided companionship services for the elderly, ill, or disabled.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Phone: 336-333-9899
Fax: 336-333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC Case
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Phone: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: FWK Holdings Sues Over Overpriced Pravastatin
-------------------------------------------------------------
FWK Holdings, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc., Apotex Corp., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06632, (E.D. Pa., December 27, 2016), brings this class action for
claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages
and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial
injuries it and others similarly situated have sustained against
Defendants, arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic pravastatin.
Pravastatin is used to reduce the level of low-density lipoprotein
and triglycerides in the blood to lower the risk of stroke, heart
attack and other heart complications.
Actavis PLC is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.
Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. develops, manufactures and
distribute generic pharmaceutical products.
Apotex Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 2400 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 400, Weston,
Florida 33326. Apotex is a subsidiary of Apotex, Inc., a Canadian
company with its principal place of business at 150 Signet Drive,
Toronto, Canada, M9L lT9.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA is a corporation with its
principal place of business at 750 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, New
Jersey, 07430. Glenmark is a subsidiary of Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., an Indian company with its principal place
of business at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg. Chakala, Off
Western Express Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai, India, 400 099.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
place of business at I I 1 South Calver Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202. Lupin is an Indian company with its principal
place of business at Bl4 Laxami Towers, Branda Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 051, India.
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business at 73 Route 31 N, Penningtono New
Jersey, 08534. Zydus is a subsidiary of Zydus Pharmaceuticals
Limited, an Indian pharmaceutical company.
FWK Holdings, L.L.C. is an Illinois limited liability company
located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois and is the assignee of antitrust
claims possessed by Frank W. Kerr Company. FWK brings this action
as successor-in-interest to Kerr's claims arising from its
purchase of pravastatin.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whose@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
- and -
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
David S. Nalven, Esq.
Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
Kiersten Taylor, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel: (617) 482-3700
Fax: (617) 482-3003
Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
davidn@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
kiersten@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 224-1500
Fax: (312) 224-1510
E-mail: Jvanek@vaneklaw.com
Dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
ALERE INC: "Khalid" Securities Lawsuit Transferred to D. Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Halal Khalid, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALERE INC., NAMAL
NAWANA, JAMES F. HINRICHS, JONATHAN WYGANT, RON ZWANZIGER, AND
DAVID TEITEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12650-PBS (S.D. Fla.,
November 14, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, according to a case docket
dated December 30, 2016. Chief Judge Patti B. Saris is assigned
to case.
The suit alleges that 1) the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
Arriva Medical LLC, was submitting claims to Medicare for deceased
patients; (2) the foregoing conduct subjected Arriva to revocation
of its Medicare enrollment; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Alere's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a
result, the Defendant(s) violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act.
The Corporate Defendant provides professional diagnostic products
and services for infectious and cardiometabolic disease, and
toxicology in the United States, Europe, and internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10116
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ALERE INC: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Alere Inc. concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between February 29, 2012 and November 4,
2016 inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Alere shares during the Class Period should contact the firm in
advance of the January 13, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.
To participate in this class action lawsuit, click here. You can
also 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, Alere made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Arriva Medical, LLC ("Arriva"), was submitting
claims to Medicare for deceased patients; that this conduct
subjected Arriva to revocation of its Medicare enrollment; and
that as a result of the above, Alere's statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On November 4, 2016, Alere announced that the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services alleged that Arriva submitted claims for 211
deceased patients over a five-year period, and thus revoked
Arriva's Medicare enrollment. When the above was disclosed to the
public, the value of Alere dropped, causing investors harm.
ALEXANDER MILNE: Faces "McGill" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rufus MCGill, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Alexander Milne Developmental Services d/b/a
Alexander Milne Home, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00040 (E.D. La.,
January 3, 2017), seeks overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Alexander Milne Development Services d/b/a Alexander
Milne Home is engaged in the operation of a hospital.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON+JACKSON
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Tel: (504) 599-5953
Fax: (888) 988-6499
Email: mjackson@jackson-law.net
jjackson@jackson-law.net
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces "Rosenberg" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David Rosenberg, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Allergan PLC (f/k/a Actavis PLC),
Brenton L. Saunders, Paul M. Bisaro, Maria Teresa Hilado and
Robert Todd Joyce, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00025 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 3, 2017), seeks damages for the Defendants'
misrepresentations or failure to disclose material facts in
Actavis PLC's financial reports during the class period.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Allergan common stock between February 25, 2014 and
November 2, 2016, inclusive. According to the Plaintiff, during
the class period the commons stock of Allergan has been traded at
fraud-inflated level.
Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc), is a specialty
pharmaceutical company, that develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter
pharmaceutical products worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 200
New York, NY 10119
Tel: (212) 279-5050
Email: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
ALSTON PERSONAL: Faces "Hollis" Suit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALSTON PERSONAL CARE
SERVICES, LLC, and TINA MICHELLE VANHOY, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01447 (M.D.N.C., September 29, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Plaintiff also brings this cause of action for
alleged violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
Defendants employed Plaintiff as home health care workers who
provided companionship services for the elderly, ill, or disabled.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Phone: 336-333-9899
Fax: 336-333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Phone: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Rogers Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Rogers, Plaintiff, individually and others similarly
situated individuals v. American Airlines, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC645859 (Cal. Super. Ct., January
6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
reimburse for uniform maintenance expenses, maintain accurate
payroll records and pay overtime wage in violation of California
Labor Code.
Defendant American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
Rebecca Lee, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Ave.
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (323) 962-3777
Fax: (323) 962-3004
Email: aharris@harrisandrube.com
pmohan@harrisandruble.com
- and -
John P. Dorigan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
600 Canterbury Lane
Sagamore Hills, OH 44067
Tel: (330) 748-4475
Fax: (330) 748-4475
Email: jpdorigan@aol.com
AMERICAN BUILDERS: Portillo Alleges Violation of Civil Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mynor F Portillo, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. American Builders & Contractors
Supply Co., Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00142 (C.D. Cal. (Western Division - Los Angeles), January
6, 2017), accused the defendant of violation of civil rights
(citizenship).
Defendant American Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc. is a
major, private American roofing supply company based in Beloit,
Wisconsin.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
4100 Newport Place Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
AMERICAN CASINO: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Under FLSA, Nev. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY ORTIZ, an individual and resident of Nevada; DENISE
KALINICH, an individual and resident of Nevada; all on behalf of
themselves and all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs.
AMERICAN CASINO & ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES, LLC, a Foreign
Limited-Liability Company, D/B/A STRATOSPHERE CASINO, HOTEL &
TOWER; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-03033-JCM-PAL (D. Nev., December 30, 2016), alleges
failure by Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees all lawfully earned and due wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada's Wage-and-Hour Laws.
American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC, through its
subsidiaries, owns and operates gaming and entertainment
properties in Clark County, Nevada.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
Bradley Schrager, Esq.
Daniel Hill, Esq.
Daniel Bravo, Esq.
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Phone: (702) 341-5200
Fax: (702) 341-5300
E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
Email: bschrager@wrslawyers.com
Email: dhill@wrslawyers.com
Email: dbravo@wrslawyers.com
- and -
Melanie A. Hill, Esq.
Nicole E. Lovelock, Esq.
LOVELOCK HILL PLLC
400 S. 4th Street, Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 362-8500
Fax: (702) 362-8505
Email: nlovelock@lovelockhill.com
Email: mhill@lovelockhill.com
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between May 11, 2015 and November 8,
2016, inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm before the
January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.
If you purchased Arrowhead shares 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 by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com --
There has been no class certification in this case yet. 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 Arrowhead made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that its drug candidate ARC-
520 was fatal at certain doses; that the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration was unlikely to approve ARC-520 as a hepatitis B
treatment; that the Company overstated the approval prospects and
commercial viability of ARC-520; and that as a result of the
above, Arrowhead's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On November 8, 2016, Arrowhead
revealed that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration would be placing
a clinical hold on its Heparc-2004 clinical study of ARC-520,
likely due to deaths at the highest dose of an ongoing non-human
primate toxicology study. When this information was disclosed to
the public, shares of Arrowhead declined in value, causing
investors serious harm.
AT HOME: Faces "Kholvekov" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmad Kholvekov, Adil Erbabaev, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against At Home Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07162 (E.D.N.Y., December 29,
2016), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendant provides home health care to individuals who live in New
York City.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Phone: (718) 808-2224
E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: To Appeal VLT Class-Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Vocm.com reports that Atlantic Lottery has released a statement
regarding the class action lawsuit Babstock and Small v. ALC.
Atlantic Lottery says recent media reports have questioned the
integrity of its games. There have been accusations that it is
next to impossible to win on VLTs.
ALC says the outcomes on VLTs are determined randomly the moment
you initiate the game.
The statement goes on to say manufacturers must meet industry
standards and testing is carried out by independent laboratories
before terminals are put into use.
ALC will appeal the class-action certification, and denies any
basis for claims brought forward by plaintiffs.
Finally, ALC's lawyer says there has been media attention on an
English statute from 1710, that players have the right to recover
money paid to play video lottery. ALC calls the allegation
'groundless.'
BARCLAYS BANK: "Jeffery" Suit Removed to S.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------
The case, Robert Jeffery, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Defendant,
has been removed from Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia,
Case No. SPCV1601015, to the U.S. District Court of Southern
District of Georgia (Savannah) Case No. 4:17-cv-00003-WTM-GRS on
January 6, 2017.
Defendant Barclays Bank is a foreign corporation incorporated in
the state of Delaware.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Feagle
Skaar & Feagle, LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Tel: (404) 373-1970
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kucharski" Seeks to Enforce Insurance Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KUCHARSKI, LEWIS ARTLEY, and BILLY MARTIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00899-JD-MGG (N.D.
Ind., December 29, 2016), seeks redress for damages and to enforce
their right to capped, maximum health insurance premium
contributions under the terms of a labor agreement under Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Bayer HealthCare LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
healthcare and medical products.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
445 North Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
Phone: (317) 637-2345
Fax: (317) 637-2369
E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Swanson Alleges Violation of Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Swanson, Plaintiff, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated employees v. Ben Bridge-Jeweler, Inc.
and Does 1-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00012 (E.D.
Cal., January 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of Labor Code.
Defendant Ben Bridge Jeweler is an American jewelry retailer that
sells engagement rings, diamonds and watches among other products.
The Plaintiff appeared pro se.
BIG LOTS: "Gunsett" Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE GUNSETT, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BIG LOTS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01210-EAS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, December 30, 2016), challenges
policies and practices of Defendant that allegedly violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Act.
Big Lots Stores, Inc. is an American retail company that has over
1,400 stores in 48 states.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER, LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: 330-470-4428
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
BROCK & SCOTT: Simmons Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faith C. Simmons, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated, v. Brock & Scott, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00036-CC-AJB (N.D. Ga. (Atlanta), January 5, 2017), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Defendant Brock & Scott, PLLC is a law firm.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shimshon E. Wexter, Esq.
Suite 250
315 West Ponce De Leon
Atlanta, GA 30030
Tel: (212) 760-2400
Email: swexleresq@gmail.com
CARRIER CORP: Faces "Koski" Suit Over Sale of Defective Heaters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Koski, Jeffrey Yunis, John Commins, Nicole Suri, Caroline
Canales, Maria Alonso, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CARRIER CORPORATION, RHEEM
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NORTEK GLOBAL HVAC, UNDERWRITERS
LABORATORIES, LLC, UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., INTERTEK
TESTING SERVICES NA, INC., TUTCO, INC., WARREN TECHNOLOGY INC.,
NOVA COIL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25372-RNS (S.D.
Fla., December 29, 2016), alleges that Defendants have engaged in
the sale and distribution of defective and unreasonably dangerous
heaters and HVAC equipment by deceit and false pretense, for
profit.
Defendants are manufacturers of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning products (HVAC) for use in the United States.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Domingo C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICE, LLC
2121 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 430
Miami, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 774-1477
Fax: (305) 774-1075
E-mail: Domingo@rlomiami.com
Pleadings@rlomiami.com
CATER ONE: "Henry" Suit Alleges Violation of New York Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Henry, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated v. Cater One NYC, LLC d/b/a Caf‚
Metro and any related entities, Defendant, Case No. 150194/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendant
to recover wages and gratuities wrongfully retained in violation
of New York Labor Law.
Defendant Cater One NYC, LLC is engaged in restaurant industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
Jack Newhouse, Esq.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 943-9080
Fax: (212) 943-9082
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Still Defending Talmer Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation.
On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer.
The actions are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et
al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB.
These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of
Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and
Chemical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the
directors of Talmer breached their fiduciary duties to Talmer's
shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a
transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that
undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive deal protection
provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and abetted the
Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's
shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual
defendants have been unjustly enriched. Both complaints seek
various remedies on behalf of the putative class (consisting of
all shareholders of Talmer who are not related to or affiliated
with any defendant). They request, among other things, that the
Court enjoin the merger from being consummated in accordance with
its agreed-upon terms, direct the Talmer directors to exercise
their fiduciary duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent
that it is already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and
disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as
the court deems just and proper.
The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW")
served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an
alleged conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under
actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants
omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the
proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to
the proposed merger.
These two cases were consolidated as In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB, per an order
entered on May 12, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs in
this consolidated action again amended their complaint, adding
additional factual allegations, adding KBW as a defendant, and
asserting that KBW acted in concert with Chemical to aid and abet
breaches of fiduciary duty by Talmer's directors.
Talmer, Chemical, KBW and the individual defendants all believe
that the claims asserted against each of them in the consolidated
action are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
these consolidated lawsuits.
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bushansky, Sciabacucchi & Nicholl Suits Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that four class
action lawsuits filed by shareholders of Talmer Bancorp have been
dismissed.
On March 22, 2016, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of
Talmer, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et al. Case No.
2016-152112-CB. This action contained similar allegations, claims,
and requests for relief as the complaints filed in the Lee and
City of Livonia lawsuits. The Bushansky lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice, on April 18, 2016.
On April 27, 2016, Stephen Bushansky filed a new putative class
action complaint in the United State District Court for Eastern
District of Michigan, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp
In. et.al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11511. This lawsuit alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and named Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals
as defendants. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the preliminary Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger. The Federal Bushansky lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice, on June 20, 2016.
On April 6, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another
purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Matthew Sciabacucchi v.
Chemical Financial Corporation et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11261.
Mr. Sciabacucchi purports to bring this action "on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated." This lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, naming Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed
merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include,
among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed
transaction, rescind the transaction if it is consummated or award
rescissory damages, order the Talmer directors to file a revised
Registration Statement, declare that the Defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, award the
plaintiff all costs associated with bringing the action (including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further
relief as the court deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical and
the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted
against each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Sciabacucchi
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all
defendants, without prejudice, on August 5, 2016.
On April 25, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another
purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Kevin Nicholl v. Chemical
Financial Corporation et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11482. The
plaintiff names Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as
defendants. This lawsuit was styled as a class action and
derivative action, and alleged breach of fiduciary duties as well
as violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Nicholl lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, with prejudice,
on June 20, 2016.
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Livonia Employees Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case,
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et al., remains stayed.
On June 16, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by a purported
Talmer shareholder, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:16-
cv-12229. The plaintiff purports to bring the action "individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests
certification as a class action. This lawsuit alleges violations
of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger.
The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction
unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer's
shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities
laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the
Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper. Talmer,
Chemical, and the individual defendants all believe that the
claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
On October 18, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order staying
this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings
on motions to dismiss that the defendants anticipate filing in In
re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-
CB.
CKA MANAGEMENT: Overtime Pay Sought in "Acevedo" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Acevedo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CKA Management LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-06605 (E.D. N.Y., December 27, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.
CKA Management is a Taco Bell and Wendy's franchisee operating
restaurants in New York and New Jersey, where Plaintiff worked as
an assistant manager.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Tel: (718) 808-2224
Email: naydenskiylaw@gmai1.com
CLARINS USA: "Fraco" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Fraco, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all employees similarly situated v. Clarins USA, Inc., a
corporation, LES Boutiques Clarins, LTD., a corporation, Lauri
Mashore, an individual and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. BC645994 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants fail to provide meal period, rest period, accurate wage
and overtime in violation of California Labor Law.
Defendant Clarins USA, Inc. engages in the manufacture of skin
care, make-up, and fragrance products for men and women.
Defendant Les Boutique Clarins, Ltd. is a small cosmetic & beauty
supply store in New York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nancy L. Abrolat, Esq.
Shahane A. Martirosyan, Esq.
ABROLAT LAW PC
840 Apollo Street, Suite 300
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 615-0008
Fax: (310) 615-0009
COSTAL BUILDING: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Nolasco Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leomindry Nolasco, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Costal Building Maintenance, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Matthew R. Sullivan, individually and Agatha Velez,
individually, Defendants, Filing No. 50863985 (11th Cir. Fla.,
January 6, 2017), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
Defendant Coastal Building Maintenance, Inc., is a maintenance
contractor that provides janitorial services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: 305-416-5000
Fax: 305-416-5005
Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
pn@rgpattorneys.com
COWBOYS SALOON: Faces "Perera" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Anthony Perera, Plaintiff, individually and others
similarly situated individuals v. Cowboys Saloon Holdings, LLC, a
Florida Profit Limited Liability Company, individually, BG Capital
Group South Florida, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
individually, Robert Genovese, individually and Sven Nelson,
individually, Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-000559 (7th Cir. Fla.,
January 6, 2017), seeks payment of unpaid wages and overtime pay
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Cowboy Saloon Holdings, LLC, a Florida Profit Limited
Liability Company and located in Broward County, Florida.
Defendant BG Capital Group South Florida, Inc. is a Florida Profit
Corporation and located in Broward County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: 305-416-5000
Fax: 305-416-5005
Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
pn@rgpattorneys.com
CVB FINANCIAL: Parties in Shareholder Suit Reached MOU
------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in a
shareholder class action lawsuit have signed a memorandum of
understanding that would resolve this case.
The Company said, "A purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action
captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D.
Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J.
Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named
as defendants."
"On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action
originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case
No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the
same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On
January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions
for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No.
CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District Court also
appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the
"Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for
the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.
"On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other
things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely
affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which
was originally alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August
9, 2010 (but which has subsequently been shortened to the period
between March 4, 2010 and August 9, 2010). Specifically,
defendants are alleged to have violated applicable accounting
rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection with the
Company's allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting
guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for
making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated complaint
sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the
purported class.
"Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following
filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the
District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but
providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended
complaint within 30 days of this ruling. On September 20, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same
defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on
October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25,
2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013, which
became a final, appealable order on September 30, 2013.
"On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the District Court's final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of
appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals
conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10,
2015. On February 1, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its
decision in the case. The Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the
district court's decision in part, reversed it in part and
remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court.
"On September 28, 2016, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding that would resolve this case. The resolution is
subject to final court approval, but it would be funded solely
with insurance proceeds, and would involve no admission of
liability whatsoever.
CVB FINANCIAL: "Morgan" Class Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Glenda Morgan are engaged in discovery.
A former employee and branch-based service manager filed a
complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action
entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
individually and on behalf of the Company's branch-based employees
and managers who are classified as "exempt" under California and
federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class
action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the
Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt"
employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour,
overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii)
certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements,
(iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll
records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices.
On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed
a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business
Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San
Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
Company's "non-exempt" hourly employees.
On April 6, 2015, these two cases were consolidated in a first
amended complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The first
amended complaint sought class certification, the appointment of
the plaintiffs as class representatives, and an unspecified amount
of damages and penalties.
On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended
complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims
and asserting various defenses. On May 24, 2016, the Company was
served with a second amended complaint which, among other things,
added a third and more recently-employed former employee, Theresa
Ruiz, as one of the named plaintiffs in the action.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and the filing of
briefs by the parties in connection with the class certification
motion is not presently expected to commence until at least March
the summer of 2017. The Company intends to vigorously contest both
(x) certification of the class action as well as (y) the
substantive merits of the plaintiffs' claims.
On September 6, 2016, the Company received a demand from the same
law firm representing the named plaintiffs in the class action
seeking penalties under the California Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on behalf of on behalf of Anjula Sharma and
all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
("aggrieved employees") for violation of certain provisions of the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. The PAGA demand alleges
facts similar to those in the class action. The demand seeks
applicable penalties arising out of the wage, hour and payroll
practices, for violation of the aforementioned provisions of the
Labor Code pursuant to the PAGA. The Company denies the
allegations and intends to vigorously contest any action brought
under PAGA on behalf of the aggrieved employees.
DAKOTA PLAINS: Rosen Updates Investors About Suit Filed by Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, issue this
update to purchasers of Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. securities
from March 23, 2012 through August 15, 2016, both dates inclusive
in light of the Company's recent bankruptcy filing. While the
bankruptcy may add delay to the lawsuit filed by The Rosen Law
Firm, the case will proceed forward against certain other
defendants in the case to achieve a recovery for investors. The
firm also reminds investors of the important February 14, 2017
lead plaintiff deadline in the class action.
To join the Dakota Plains class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-976.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
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 gains at the expenses of Dakota
Plains investors; (3) Dakota Plains lacked effective and adequate
internal control; 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 lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 14, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-976.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
DENNIS E. BLOCK: "Boettcher" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathlleen Boettcher, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Dennis E. Block P.C.,
Dennis E. Block, XYZ Entities 1-100 and J. Does 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00038-NLH-KMW (D. N.J., January 4, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for employment discrimination in
violation of the Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Hagerty, Esq.
HAGERTY & BLAND-TULL LAW LLC
714 East Main Street Suite 2C
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Tel: (609) 304-7541
Fax: (856) 522-1985
Email: rob@hagertylawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allan E. Richardson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS E. BLOCK PC
142 Emerson Street, Suite B
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Tel: (856) 579-7051
Fax: (856) 579-7051
Email: arichardson@lauletta.com
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. securities from October 9, 2014 through
November 2, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Diplomat Pharmacy investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Diplomat Pharmacy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-992.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Diplomat Pharmacy lacked adequate internal
controls over its financial reporting; (2) as a result, Diplomat
Pharmacy could not adequately calculate DIR fees; (3) Diplomat
Pharmacy's hepatitis C segment was not performing as previously
disclosed to investors; (4) therefore, Diplomat Pharmacy had
overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (5) as a result,
defendants' statements about Diplomat Pharmacy's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 9, 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, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-992.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-
767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com
DR. REDDY'S: FWK Holdings Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned FWK Holdings, LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Aurobindo
Pharma USA, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd. and Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06633, (E.D. Pa., December 27,
2016), brings this class action for claims under federal and state
antitrust laws to recover damages and obtain injunctive and
equitable relief for the substantial injuries it and others
similarly situated have sustained against Defendants, arising from
the Defendants' conspiracy to raise the prices of Divalproex
sodium extended-release tablets and to allocate markets and
customers for this product in the United States.
Divalproex ER is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant indicated
for the treatment of seizures and migraines.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business at 107 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540. Dr. Reddy's is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., an Indian
corporation, with its principalplace of business at 7-1-27,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016, Andhra Pradesh, India. During the
Class Period, Dr. Reddy's sold Divalproex ER to customers in this
District and throughout the United States.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 30831 Huntwood Avenue,
Hayward, California.
Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge,
New York, 10977. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge
Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977.
Wockhardt Ltd. an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company headquartered in Mumbai, India. Wockhardt maintains
manufacturing plants and substantial operations in the United
States, including its wholly-owned subsidiary Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
FWK Holdings, L.L.C. is an Illinois limited liability company
located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois and is the assignee of antitrust
claims possessed by Frank W. Kerr Company. FWK brings this action
as successor-in-interest to Kerr's claims arising from its
purchase of Divalproex sodium extended-release tablets.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whose@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
- and -
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
David S. Nalven, Esq.
Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
Kiersten Taylor, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel: (617) 482-3700
Fax: (617) 482-3003
Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
davidn@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
kiersten@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 224-1500
Fax: (312) 224-1510
E-mail: Jvanek@vaneklaw.com
Dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
DR. REDDY'S: Miami Police Fund Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Fraternal Order of Police,
Miami, Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.,
Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06668, (E.D. Pa., December 27, 2016), brings this class action for
claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages
and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial
injuries it and others similarly situated have sustained against
Defendants, arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to raise the
prices of Divalproex sodium extended-release tablets and to
allocate markets and customers for this product in the United
States, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
Divalproex ER is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant indicated
for the treatment of seizures and migraines.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business at 107 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540. Dr. Reddy's is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., an Indian
corporation, with its principalplace of business at 7-1-27,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016, Andhra Pradesh, India. During the
Class Period, Dr. Reddy's sold Divalproex ER to customers in
this District and throughout the United States.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 30831 Huntwood Avenue,
Hayward, California.
Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge,
New York, 10977. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge
Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977.
FOP Miami is a governmental plan established and funded through
contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who
are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami
Police Department and their dependents. FOP Miami was established
pursuant to a duly executed Trust Agreement for the purpose of
providing medical, surgical and hospital care or benefits,
including prescription drug benefits, to its members. It maintains
its principal place of business at 400 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami,
Florida.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
35 East State Street
Media, PA 19063
Tel: 610-891-9880
Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
Weston, FL 33326
Tel: (561) 270-0795
Email: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com
DS SERVICES: "Pimienta" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hector Pimienta, an Individual, On
Behalf of Himself and All Similarly Situated Current and Former
Employees, the Plaintiff, v. DS Services of America, Inc. and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC640739, was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-09580 to the proceeding.
DS Services produces and distributes bottled water and water
filtration coolers for homes, offices, workplaces, and retail
establishments.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant DS Services of America, Inc. is represented by:
Duwayne Andre Carr, Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
560 Mission Street Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397 2823
Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
E-mail: dacarr@seyfarth.com
DYNASTY VI FOOD: Faces "Abuzahrieh" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Khalil Abuzahrieh, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dynasty VI Food Corp.
d/b/a Fresh N Save and/or Key Food, Dynasty VII Food Corp. d/b/a
Food Dynasty, Dynasty Meat Corp. d/b/a Freh N Save and/or Key
Food, 50-18 Meat Corp. d/b/a Fresh N Save, Defendants, Case No.
150170/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 6, 2017), seeks overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.
The Defendants operate grocery, bakery, dairy, produce and meat
retail supermarkets.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lloyd R. Ambinder. Esq.
Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 943-9080
Email: lambinder@vandallp.com
ELDER SERVICES: Faces "Fongemie" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Fongemie, Regina Bankhead, Tammy Cunningham, and Audra
Davis, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elder Services of Central
Florida, Inc., d/b/a Comfort Keepers, and Tracy D. Kelley, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-03525-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
December 29, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Defendants are senior care providers.
The Plaintiffs are represented:
Donna V. Smith, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Floriday Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-224-0431
813-386-0995
Fax: 813-229-8712
E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Reider" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Reider, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. and Does
1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00026 (C.D. Cal.,
January 6, 2017), accuses the defendant of breach of contract.
Defendant Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. manufactures and
distributes vacuum and floor cleaners, and other home and
commercial cleaning products in North America.
The Plaintiff appeared pro se.
ENDOLOGIX INC: "Nguyen" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicky Nguyen, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Endologix, Inc., John McDermott and Vaseem
Mahboob, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00017 (C.D. Cal., January 3,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for materially false and
misleading statements in violation of federal Securities Law.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Endologix between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, both dates
inclusive. The complaint asserts that the statement were
materially false, misleading and failed to disclose pertaining to
the Company's business, operational and financial results which
were known to Defendants.
Defendant Endologix develops, manufactures, markets and sells
medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in
the United States and internationally and located at 2 Musick,
Irvine, CA.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ERESEARCH TECHNOLOGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASH GILL, the Plaintiff, v. ERESEARCH TECHNOLOGY, INC., and SCOTT
APEL, Individually and VALERIE MATTERN, Individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06601-MMB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 23, 2016),
seeks to recover damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has
suffered as a result of being discriminated against by his
employer on the basis of his race and national origin, together
with retaliation and hostile work environment pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) and the Philadelphia Fair
Practices Ordinance (PFPO).
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, alleges that he has suffered and will continue to suffer
the loss of income, the loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits and
other compensation which such employment entails, and he has also
suffered future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary
losses.
The Plaintiff further experienced severe emotional and physical
distress.
ERT is a global company specializing in clinical services and
customizable medical devices to biopharmaceutical and healthcare
organizations.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline H. Miller, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 391 4790
ESSENTIA HEALTH: "Morin" Suit Invokes ERISA to Recover Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morin, Janet Hufnagel, Diane Mesedahl, Shannon Lushine,Amy
Palo, Tim Robinson, and Jeanette Terhaar, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Essentia Health Retirement Plan and the Essentia
Health 403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Essentia Health, St. Mary's
Duluth Clinic Health System, the Essentia Health Investment
Committee, Diane T. Davidson, and John Does 1-30, Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-04397 (D. Minn., December 29, 2016), seeks to recover
financial losses allegedly suffered by the Essentia Health
Retirement Plan and the Essentia Health 403(b) Plan and to obtain
injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plans under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Essentia Health is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation that owns and
operates medical clinics, hospitals, fitness and therapy centers,
medical rehabilitation centers, long-term care facilities,
pharmacies, and assisted/independent living centers throughout
Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Idaho.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ashwin Madia, Esq.
Joshua Newville, Esq.
Cody Blades, Esq.
MADIA LAW LLC
345 Union Plaza
333 Washington Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: 612.349.2723
Fax: 612.235.3357
E-mail: jamadia@madialaw.com
- and -
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-256-3200
Fax: 612-338-4878
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
bmcdonough@nka.com
EXPRESS OIL: Faces "Gantt" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY D. GANTT AND MICHAEL W. STOUT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EXPRESS OIL CHANGE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04795-TCB (N.D. Ga., December 29,
2016), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act with a common policy and practice of failing to pay their
employees overtime at the legally required rate.
Defendant is an oil change and maintenance company.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
3100 Centennial Tower
101 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 979-3171
Fax: (404) 979-3170
E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
benjamin@dcbflegal.com
FALLS FESTIVAL: Faces Possible Class Action Following Crowd Crush
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalailah Medhora at abc.net.au reports that Falls Festival
organisers could face a legal challenge from patrons who were
caught up the crowd crush, as a law firm in Victoria considers
launching a class action case.
Up to 80 people were caught up in the stampede at the Grand
Theatre in the festival in Lorne, as they tried to leave the tent
where DMA's were playing in order to see London Grammar.
Nineteen people were hospitalised with injuries ranging from
broken bones, to possible head and spinal trauma.
One festival-goer got in touch with Hack to tell us about the leg
injuries she suffered. Although they weren't life-threatening,
they've taken their toll.
I'm unable to walk which means I can't work my hospitality job
that I have to save for university," she said.
Maddens Lawyers in Warrnambool have spoken to people caught up in
the crush, many of whom are from the south-western Victorian town.
Brendan Pentergast is the lawyer spearheading the possible class
action lawsuit -- that is, a legal challenge mounted on behalf of
a group of people, in this case, festival-goers who were injured
or traumatised.
'It wasn't possible to leave in a safe way'
He told Hack that from initial reports it looked like the crush
could have been avoided if the site was designed better.
"In the event of a mass exodus... the configuration was such that
it simply wasn't possible for people to leave en masse in a safe
way, and indeed, that's what happened on the 30th of December," he
said.
Festival-goers couldn't control that, and had a reasonable
expectation of safety when they bought their tickets, Brendan
said.
"We say that if you charge a substantial entry fee, or any entry
fee for that matter, to a public event, the attendees are entitled
to be provided to a safe environment in which to view and enjoy
the proceedings."
Brendan said "it may be the case" that regulations around safety
were broken during the festival, but that the law firm was trying
to work that out for sure before deciding whether or not to go
ahead with the class action.
It's important to note that there are a number of investigations
underway about what happened. WorkSafe Victoria are conducting one
that will look specifically at whether the festival broke rules
and regulations around site design and safety procedures.
But it could be ages before we find out for sure. WorkSafe has two
years to finish the investigation, though they have told Hack that
most investigations are completed within six months.
'Confluence of events'
Hack has asked to speak to festival organisers, but they've
declined each time, saying they don't have to speak to us while an
investigation is underway.
Co-producer of the festival, Jessica Ducrou, posted a message on
the Falls Facebook page shortly after the incident, saying a
"confluence of events" led to it occurring in the first place.
"With over 20 years of experience running festivals behind us, we
are completely devastated by the crowd crush that occurred with
patrons exiting The Grand Theatre, and we are beyond shattered
that a number of our festival patrons were injured and impacted by
this event," she said.
"We care so very much about your experience at Falls, we spend
countless hours planning the Falls Festival year-round, with
dedicated teams specifically focused on each event site."
Patron safety is of paramount importance to us and having to
address such a serious situation is very distressing for all."
Jessica has been personally contacting people who were caught up
in the crush.
She said that there were 15 security guards at the Grand Theatre,
which was really close to the nearest medical help point.
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Parties in "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank is in discovery, Fifth
Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four
similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank
in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle
Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank,
Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth
Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern
District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In
re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of
a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's
fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the
court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit
except a claim under the TILA. The parties are currently engaged
in discovery. No trial date has been scheduled.
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties Negotiating Definitive Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are negotiating
the terms of a definitive settlement agreement.
The Bank and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-
principle to settle the litigation during the second quarter of
2016. The parties are negotiating the terms of a definitive
settlement agreement which would be subject to court approval and
other customary conditions. The estimated cost of the settlement
to the Bank was recorded as a liability in the second quarter of
2016.
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The
plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs
who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages
under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act.
First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to oppose class certification. The Bank
has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off
and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as
representatives of the putative class. The Bank and counsel for
the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation during the second quarter of 2016. The parties are
negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which
would be subject to court approval and other customary conditions.
The estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a
liability in the second quarter of 2016.
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Defending Raul v. Highlander Case
-----------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company as successor to, First Clover Leaf, certain former
executive officers of First Clover Leaf, certain former members of
First Clover Leaf's board of directors are named as defendants in
one purported class action lawsuit brought by an alleged
individual First Clover Leaf stockholder challenging the merger of
First Clover Leaf into the Company (the "Lawsuit").
The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al , Case No. 16-
L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The Lawsuit
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual officers and
directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the process leading to
the merger of First Clover Leaf and the Company. The Lawsuit
alleges that the merger consideration was inadequate and that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus did not contain sufficient
disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also alleges that First Clover
Leaf and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. The relief sought
includes class certification, declaratory relief, rescission of
the merger should it be consummated, interest on any monetary
judgment, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company and the
individual defendants believe that the factual allegations in the
Lawsuit are without merit and legally unfounded. They have moved
to dismiss the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against
these allegations.
FISHER SAND AND GRAVEL: "Halkola" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Halkola, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Fisher Sand and Gravel Co. and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. RG17844100 (Super. Ct. Cal.,
January 3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 8
hours in violation of California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tel: (415) 543-1305
Fax: (415) 543-7861
Email: rspencer@kellergrover.com
eagrover@kellergrover.com
- and -
Scott Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, APC
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Tel: (916) 447-0100
Fax: (916) 933-5533
Email: swampadero@bernsteinlaw.com
FOUGERA PHARMA: Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Fluocinonide
----------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Novartis AG, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-09949, (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2016), seeks to recover
treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from overcharging of generic fluocinonide in violation
of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.
Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of
business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1
Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased
fluocinonide directly from one or more Defendants at excessive
prices.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a
specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company that markets
and sells generic fluocinonide throughout the United States.
Fougera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a
Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in
Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and
bio-similars and is a subsidiary of Defendant Novartis AG.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. develops, manufactures and
distribute generic pharmaceutical products.
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 722-7053
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
Guaynabo, PR 00968
Tel: (787) 751-5290
Email: juan@riverafont.com
GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against General Cable Corporation and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-00092, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired General Cable securities between February 23,
2012 and February 10, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased General Cable securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 6, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
General Cable is a global leader in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems.
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: (i) General Cable paid millions of dollars in bribes to
government officials in foreign countries, including Angola,
Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, India, and Thailand, in order
to secure business; (ii) the foregoing conduct was in violation of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 (the "FCPA"); (iii)
General Cable's revenues were therefore in part the product of
illegal conduct, and, as such, subject to disgorgement and
unlikely to be sustainable; (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it
became known, would subject the Company to significant regulatory
scrutiny and financial penalties; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On September 22, 2014, General Cable disclosed that the Company
was reviewing "payment practices," "the use of agents," and "the
manner in which the payments were reflected on our books and
records" in connection with General Cable's operations in
Portugal, Angola, Thailand, and India. General Cable advised
investors that these issues "may have implications under" the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
On this news, General Cable stock fell $0.93, or 4.68%, to close
at $18.96 on September 22, 2014.
On February 26, 2015, General Cable announced that in connection
with a possible settlement of FCPA offenses, the Company expected
to disgorge $24 million in profits from bribe-tainted sales in
Angola.
On February 10, 2016, post-market, General Cable reported that the
Company had increased its disgorgement accrual for the potential
FCPA settlement by $9 million to $33 million, after identifying
"certain other transactions that may raise concerns".
On this news, General Cable's share price fell $3.05, or 31.61%,
to close at $6.60 on February 11, 2016.
On December 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that
General Cable had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the Company "agreed to
pay $75.8 million to settle allegations it paid bribes across
Africa and Asia and . . . agreed to an additional $6.5 million
penalty to settle accounting-related violations." The article
further stated that the Company's subsidiaries, "over a period of
a dozen years, paid about $13 million to third-party agents and
distributors," who in turn "paid bribes to government officials in
Angola, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Thailand to get business
in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."
GLADE: Freshener Causes Damage to Vehicle's Interior, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson at Legal NewsLine reports that a man in Pennsylvania
filed a class action lawsuit against automobile air freshener
maker Glade, alleging its products leak and cause damage to a
vehicle's interior.
Anthony J. Succi filed his complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Kraco Enterprises LLC
and SC Johnson & Son Inc. The lawsuit alleges violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False
Advertising Law and negligent misrepresentation.
The plaintiff alleges that he and others were enticed to purchase
the products without knowledge of the likelihood of them causing
unwanted or unnecessary damage to car interior, according to the
complaint. The result was that consumers have allegedly incurred
damages, including financial loss and damage to property and
devaluation of the automobiles.
Neither company named as defendants could be reached for comment.
However, a consumer law attorney for Stanley Law Group, Stephen
Gardner, provided his thoughts to Legal Newsline.
Can the court award damages in a case such as this? How would the
plaintiff prove that Glade is liable for such damage to the
vehicle's interior?
"If the plaintiff can prove it, sure the court can award damages,"
Gardner said in an email to Legal Newsline. "Proving it would
require expert testimony, and I don't have a guess at how they
would do that."
Are there case examples similar to this one to draw experience
from?
"Not really -- a big reason why I don't have a guess as to their
proof," Gardner said.
What is Glade's likely response to this particular matter? Will
they find it frivolous and seek a motion to dismiss?
"The knee-jerk reaction of a class action defendant is to file a
motion to dismiss, in an effort to avoid getting the the actual
facts, so I reckon they will do that," Gardner said. "They will
almost certainly claim the case is frivolous, but that doesn't
mean that it is."
The complaint alleges that the companies were responsible because
they did not disclose the likelihood of these damages and did not
offer to reimburse consumers for losses or damages suffered.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury, maintain the case as a
class action, appoint named plaintiff as the representative of the
class and his counsel as class counsel, damages, restitution,
interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief, attorneys' fees,
costs and further relief that the court grants and deems
appropriate. His attorneys are Richard D. McCune and David C.
Wright of McCuneWright LLP in Redlands, California, and Joseph G.
Sauder, Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of McCuneWright
LLP in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.
GROVETOWN CITY: To Pay More Than $1.5MM in Outcome of Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbigail Lennon at The Augusta Chronicle reports that Grovetown
city officials OK'd a final offer to settle a class-action lawsuit
out of court January 4 for more than $1 million after leaders said
that they could not have challenged the accusations at trial.
Mayor Gary Jones said the lawsuit claimed the city had charged
higher water utility rates to cover up embezzlement by a Grovetown
employee. Those allegations are the center of a federal
investigation launched in March.
"It is of my opinion that theft did occur and large amounts of
money was taken and was embezzled and it was in water charges and
we couldn't have won in court," Jones said.
The city agreed to pay $750,000 in the next 10 days and an
additional $62,500 per month for the remainder of 2017, for a
total of $1.5 million according to a Facebook post from Jones.
After attorney fees are paid along with the plaintiffs, Alan
Transou and business owner Deena Youngblood, the remainder will be
placed in a trust fund and redeemed to residents, Jones said,
while stressing that the amounts "will not be astronomical."
Residents will be reimbursed via vouchers or credits by an
administrator of the trust fund. The council is expected to have a
completed list of households affected and what each will be due at
the city's regularly scheduled council meeting.
Jones added that residents will receive only a small portion each
in relation to the settlement because of the more than about 5,000
residents the money will be split among. But the settlement,
though unfortunate, was the right thing to do, Jones said, adding
that part of the money to pay for the agreement will come out of
the city's general fund and the rest from insurance.
"We are not going to raise water rates, and we aren't going to
raise sewer rates. No. 1, it's not the right thing to do, and No.
2, we can't raise them; it's part of the lawsuit agreement," Jones
said. "We have money in reserve so we were able to utilize that to
take care of a majority of this; hopefully insurance will be able
to recoup up to $500,000 of it."
Jones said that the forensic investigation is still ongoing and
that he expects to see a conclusion by the end of January.
"I certainly want to move forward in a progressive fashion," Jones
said. "But we don't know how deep this stuff goes still, we are
still under active criminal investigation; things are still being
found almost daily that we were unaware of."
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Santiago" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell
International, Inc. The case is styled as Karen Santiago,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-25359-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 28, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.
Honeywell is an American multinational conglomerate company that
produces a variety of commercial and consumer products,
engineering services and aerospace systems.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeannete C. Lewis, Esq.
LEWIS LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
1655 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 303
Weston, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 660 4499
Facsimile: (954) 660 4818
E-mail: jlewis@lewislegalgroup.com
- and -
Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., Esq.
David Wayne Brill, Esq.
BRILL & RINALDI
999 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
Penthouse 1120
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 809 8609
Facsimile: (305) 445 5055
E-mail: joe@brillrinaldi.com
david@brillrinaldi.com
- and -
Robert J. McKee, Esq.
THE MCKEE LAW GROUP LLC
17150 Royal Palm Boulevard, Suite 1
Weston, FL 33327
Telephone: (954) 888 9877
E-mail: rmckee@themckeelawgroup.com
HUMANA HEALTH: "Warren" Labor Suit Reassigned to Judge Walker
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge William Stafford on December 15, 2016, disqualified
himself from participation in the case captioned DIANE WARREN,
BETSY BESARES, MOIRA CAMPBELL, FABIOLA CASIMIR, VINETTA COLEMAN,
DAIMIERYS DOMINGUEZ-PINO, JUAN GENAO CHALAS, EMILY JERRY, MORELA
JOVA, STANLEY LATORTUE, SUZAN MITCHELL, DOROTHY MORGAN, KHIYANA
PARSONS, MARICELA PEREDA, JENNY REYES and YACELIA MIRANDA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HUMANA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC.
d/b/a HUMANA COMFORT CHOICE, HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., and HUMANA
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00776-WS-CAS (N.D. Fla.,
November 14, 2016).
The Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime compensation.
The case has been reassigned to Judge Mark E. Walker.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Clark Davis, Esq.
623 Beard St.
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6321
Phone: 850-222-4770
I.Q. DATA: Faces "Walker" Suit in Western Dist. of Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.Q. Data
International, Inc. The case is titled as Marli Walker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. I.Q. Data International, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01976 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 28, 2016).
IQ Data International engaged in multi-family property management
debt collections.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq.
CONCORD LAW, P.C., Suite 236
Waterfront Park Building
144 Railroad Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Telephone: (206) 512 8029
Facsimile: (206) 512 8914
E-mail: ryan@concordlawseattle.com
ILLUMINA INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Illumina Inc. and certain of
its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Illumina
securities between July 26, 2016 and October 10, 2016, inclusive.
Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ilmn.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that Illumina was suffering a large decline in its
instrument sales; (2) that this decline was damaging Illumina's
revenue; (3) that Illumina lacked visibility into trends that
could have a substantial impact on its financial results; (4)
that, as such, Illumina's revenue guidance was unreliable and
overstated; and (5) consequently, Illumina's statements its
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 10, 2016 Illumina announced its disappointing financial
results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2016. Previously, the
company had predicted revenues of $625 to $630 million for the
quarter. Now mentioning "declining demand for its high-speed
genetic sequences," Illumina generated just $607 million.
Following this news, Illumina stock dropped as much as 25% during
intraday trading on October 11, 2016.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ilmnor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Illumina, you have until February 14, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
ILLUMINA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Illumina, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between July 26, 2016 and October 10, 2016
inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the
February 15, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.
If you purchased shares of Illumina 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 during the Class Period, Illumina made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. In particular, Illumina made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: that
the Company was experiencing a sharp decrease in sequencing
instrument sales; that the decline had a significant impact on the
Company's revenue; that the Company did not have visibility into
trends that could have an impact on the Company's financial
outcomes; that, as such, the Company's revenue guidance was
unreliable and exaggerated; and that, as a result of the above,
Illumina's statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
ITT: Ch. 7 Trustee Responds to Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Deborah J. Caruso, the chapter 7 Trustee appointed by the United
States Bankruptcy Court to oversee the liquidation of the estate
of the failed ITT Educational Services, Inc. and ITT Technical
Institute responded to the purported class action complaint filed
by the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School on behalf of
all former ITT students:
"Since the filing of these chapter 7 cases in September, we have
been working with state regulators, the SEC, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Education to
better understand and address the causes of ITT's collapse and
develop a path forward. The Trustee is not ITT. My duty as a
fiduciary is to investigate claims, monetize assets, and make
distributions to creditors. In this case, the creditors not only
include former students, but also a number of other undisputed
claimholders, such as landlords and vendors. Resolving these
claims is an enormous task for a company in a traditional
restructuring, such as a retailer, but it is made even more
complicated where there are several thousand potential student
claimants - each with a unique, heartfelt story to tell - and no
one left at ITT to verify their assertions, or assist in the
response to the allegations.
The complaints filed by the states, the SEC, and the CFPB are a
roadmap, but the Trustee has to travel down the road independently
to make sure that the claims are valid. Otherwise, the risk is
that unsubstantiated claims will dilute recoveries for other
creditors - including other students - and that would defeat the
purpose of the chapter 7 filing. The recent complaint filed by the
Harvard clinic has to be reviewed in the same light."
Focused on Students
"As we have reported to the Bankruptcy Court, in virtually every
appearance we have had, the Trustee is focused on maximizing
recoveries for former students. If there is a recovery to be had
for former students, the Trustee wants them to get it, but the
Trustee also needs to be sure that the student claims do not wipe
out recoveries for other creditors.
To that end, with the assistance of my counsel from Rubin & Levin
and Proskauer Rose we have made great progress. Our first task was
to avoid 'piecemeal litigation'. Significantly, we have reached
agreements with all of the regulators regarding the various state
and federal actions asserting consumer fraud to temporarily stay
the actions while the Trustee conducts her initial investigation.
Those agreements will allow us to work productively to advance the
interests of the creditors without depleting the estate's
resources. In many respects, we share a common interest. We hope
to work constructively with the Harvard clinic, as we are doing
with other regulators, and see no reason why we can't work with
them as well. The complaint filed by the Harvard clinic mirrors
many of the same assertions raised by the regulators. We have
already made contact with the Harvard clinic, and look forward to
speaking with them about ways we can work together to bring these
cases to a successful resolution for everyone."
JCS CONSTRUCTION: Subcontractor Sues Over Unpaid Work
-----------------------------------------------------
Solid Development Group Inc, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated beneficiaries of the Trust of
which JCS Construction Group a/k/a JCS Services Inc. is Trustee,
pursuant to Lien Law Article 3-A v. JCS Construction Group a/k/a
JCS Services Inc., "John Doe Company", being unknown to plaintiff
and being intended to designate a surety that issued a labor and
material payment bond in connection with a certain construction
project referenced herein, Justin Shaw, John Doe "1" through John
Doe "10", being fictitious names, the real names being unknown to
the Plaintiff at this time, and being intended to designate
individuals, corporations, or other legal entities who are or were
recipients of funds diverted from the Trust described in the
complaint, Defendants, Case No. 650023/2017 (N.Y. Supt. Ct.,
January 3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
misappropriation of funds by JCS in violation of the Lien Law.
The Complaint stated that JCS, as contractor, undertook certain
duties and responsibilities relating to a construction projects
identified as Lefrak City Section IV Atrium and Parking Lot, 98-30
57th Ave/98-40 57th, Ave., Corona, New York 11368 (the project).
There is currently due and owing to SDG from JCS the agreed upon
principal sum of at least $100,794.86 for goods and services
rendered, which remains unpaid despite due demand.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas S. Tripodianos, Esq.
WELBY, BRADY & GREENBELT, LLP
11 Martine Avenue, Penthouse
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914) 428-2100
Fax: (914) 428-2172
Email: TTripodiano@wbgllp.com
JMA ENERGY: "Speed" Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
David Landon Speed, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. JMA Energy Company, LLC, Defendant,
including affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors, has
been removed from Hughes County District Court, Case No. CJ-16-
059, to the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Oklahoma
(Muskogee) Case No. 6:17-cv-00006-RAW on January 4, 2017.
Defendant JMA Energy Company, LLC engages in the exploration and
production of natural gas in Oklahoma.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
The Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
12 E California Ave, Ste 200
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Tel: (405) 820-4401
Email: Reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
McAfee & Taft (OKC)
211 N Robinson, 10th Flr
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Tel: (405) 235-9621
Fax: (405) 228-7435
Email: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Harter" Injury Suit Consolidated in MDL 2327
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following case is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia as part of MDL
No. 2327 pending before Judge Goodwin:
Beth Harter and Stuart Harter, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Johnson,
Ethicon, Inc., Gynecare Worldwide, Ethicon Woman's Health and
Urology, and John Doe Corporations 1-50 Defendants, Case No. 2:12-
cv-00737, Case No. 5:16-cv-00085-EKD (S.D.W. Va., March 16, 2012).
The case alleges that Plaintiffs suffered injuries arising from
the implantation into Ms. Harter of medical devices that were
negligently manufactured and designed by the Defendants and failed
to contain appropriate and significant warnings relating to their
use.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is a global
healthcare company.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harry F. Bell, Jr., Esq.
THE BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
30 Capitol Street
P.O. Box 1723
Charleston, WV 25326-1723
Phone: (304) 345-1700
Fax: (304) 345-1715
E-mail: hfbell@belllaw.com
- and -
Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
321 S. Main Street, Suite 200
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 457-7700
Fax: (401) 457-7708
E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Defend Against "Hillson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is a
party to a pending nationwide class action lawsuit entitled
Hillson et.al. v Kelly Services.
The suit alleges that current and former temporary employees of
Kelly Services are entitled to monetary damages for violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirement that the notice and
disclosure form provided to employees for purposes of conducting a
background screening be a standalone document. On April 20, 2016
the parties entered into a formal settlement agreement. The
parties still must secure court approval of the settlement. In
light of amounts previously expensed and anticipated recoveries
from third parties, Kelly recorded an accrual in the fourth
quarter of 2015 of $4.1 million to reflect the expected cost of
the tentative settlement.
LOUISIANA: Cities Sue DOTD Over Historic August Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Kinchen at The Advocate reports that the cities of Denham
Springs and Walker and others filed a class-action lawsuit against
the state Department of Transportation and Development on January
5, claiming a median barrier built along Interstate 12 caused
widespread destruction by preventing the flow of rainwater during
the historic August flooding in Livingston and East Baton Rouge
parishes.
The 19-mile median wall, built between eastbound and westbound
lanes of I-12 as part of the "Geaux Wider" project, acted as a dam
that interrupted the natural flow of water, causing damage that
would not have occurred otherwise, according to the lawsuit filed
in Baton Rouge state court.
City officials hope the lawsuit will spur the state to fix the
problems they say were created by the private contractors who
designed and built the wall - and to do so before another flood
threatens. They also want the state to correct the design for
future I-12 expansions.
"Our primary goal is to make sure this never happens again,"
Joshua Palmintier, of DeGravelles Palmintier law firm, said during
a press conference held at Walker Town Hall. "We are optimistic
this process can be started quickly and economically, before the
next hurricane season."
Palmintier, whose firm signed onto the case at the request of
former Walker Mayor Rick Ramsey, said many of the 100,000 or more
homes and businesses that flooded north of the wall were not
covered by flood insurance because they were not in high-risk
flood zones.
Denham Springs Mayor Gerard Landry said another flood like the one
in August "would mean the death of several cities along the I-12
corridor."
"We've barely survived it once. I don't think we could sustain a
second time," he said.
Livingston Parish President Layton Ricks said unless Gov. John Bel
Edwards steps in, the problems will continue with future floods.
Rodney Mallett, a DOTD spokesman, said in an emailed statement
that safety barriers built on Louisiana interstates are designed
and constructed according to national standards.
He said Gov. Edwards and DOTD Secretary Shawn Wilson met with
Ramsey to discuss his concerns about the I-12 median wall.
"The unprecedented flood event resulting from historic rains
caused tremendous damage and destruction," Mallett said. "We
continue to study the ramifications of public infrastructure in
natural disasters. DOTD's focus is on what is best for citizens of
Louisiana. In doing so, safety of the traveling public must always
be our first priority."
The lawsuit targets not only the state, but also 20 private
contractor firms that worked on the interstate project, and seeks
damages for property and economic losses from the flooding.
The naming of one private firm as a defendant presents a potential
conflict for Livingston Parish government. Forte & Tablada serves
as the parish's planning review engineering firm.
Ricks said he did not know what role Forte & Tablada may have
played in the design and construction of the barrier wall. Nor had
he realized the firm would be among the named defendants until the
day before the lawsuit was filed, he said.
"Our intent is to support this lawsuit, but I want to make sure
the Parish Council is fully informed, as I have now been, of all
the potential players in this situation before the parish signs
on," Ricks said.
Also joining the press conference in support of the lawsuit were
Central Mayor Jr. Shelton and newly seated Walker Mayor Jimmy
Watson, who said the wall must be fixed and residents whose homes
were built a foot above base flood elevation and still received 3
feet or more of water should get some kind of relief.
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Green, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, ROY GREEN, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12483 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
Roy Green is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA and
currently assigned to the Arborway Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Perry, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, VICTORIA PERRY, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12484 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
Victoria Perry is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA
and currently assigned to the Charlestown Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Williams et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, GREGORY WILLIAMS, ET AL.,
the Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12485 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
Gregory Williams is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA
and currently assigned to the Cabot/Albany Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Mooneyhan, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, JOHN MOONEYHAN, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12486 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
John Mooneyhan is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA
and currently assigned to the Charlestown Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Shea, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, DANIEL SHEA, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12488 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
Daniel Shea is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA and
currently assigned to the Lynn Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Washington, et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, TYRONE WASHINGTON, ET AL.,
the Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-12489 (D. Mass., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks
injunctive and declarative relief, as well as damages, in the form
of an order of the Court directing the MBTA to cease directing
employees to travel from place to place in the city during their
work day without compensation for the time expended in travel.
The case is a class action on behalf of Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Bus Operators who are required by
the MBTA to travel throughout the city, without compensation, from
one assigned location to another during their day's work. These
pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to
Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law.
Tyrone Washington is a full-time Bus Operator employed by the MBTA
and currently assigned to the Southampton Bus Garage.
The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most
public transportation services in the Greater Boston,
Massachusetts region.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Taylor, Esq.
GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER
1420 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 683 7782
E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com
- and -
Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
Brian Rogal, Esq.
ANGOFF, GOLDMAN, MANNING,
HYNES & DUNLAP, PC
100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203
Norwood, MA 02062
Telephone: (781) 255 7700
E-mail: BRogal@AngoffGoldman.com
MCCRORY, AR: Faces "Watlington" Class Suit in E.D. Ark.
-------------------------------------------------------
David Watlington and Lindsey Watlington, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. City of McCrory
Arkansas, and Paul Hatch, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00002-DPM
(E.D. Ark., January 6, 2017), arises from alleged violation of
civil rights.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine Sevcenko, Esq.
Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
Equal Justice Under Law
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
South Building-Suite 900
Washington, DC
Tel: (202) 505-2058
- and -
John D. Coulter, Esq.
McMath Woods, P.A.
711 West Third Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 396-5449
Fax: (501) 374-5118
Email: john@mcmathlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tadepalli" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bhushan Tadepalli on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07124, (E.D. N.Y., December 27,
2016), seeks statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses
and costs incurred in bringing this action and any other relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendants, which are debt collection agencies, allegedly sent
collection letters threatening to take legal action against the
Plaintiff if she did not pay her alleged debt within thirty days,
but the Defendants had no actual intention to do so.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Office: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
NEW BEDFORD: "Perez" Alleges Evasion of Recordkeeping Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against NEW BEDFORD MANAGEMENT CORP.,
84-70 129TH STREET OWNERS CORP. and JOHN DOE a/k/a MARTIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07181 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2016),
alleges that Defendants have willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law and supporting regulations.
Defendant New Bedford manages residential buildings in New York
City and its environs.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 571-0700
Fax: (212) 505-2001
NEW YORK, NY: Miller Sues Education Dept. for Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Leon Miller, III, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The City of New York and the Department of
Education of the City of New York, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00030 (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendant City of New York is a governmental agency.
Defendant Department of Education ("DOE") is a public agency.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Greben, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
316 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 304-5357
Email: grebenlegal.com
NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Alleges Violations of New York Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHENG ZENG, Plaintiffs, against NISEN SUSHI OF COMMACK, LLC, TOM
LAM, ROBERT BEER, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES #1-10, Defendants, Index
No. 715573/2016 (N.Y., Sup., County of Queens, December 30, 2016),
seeks to recover (1) overtime wages, (2) spread of hours
compensation, (3) damages for failure to provide wage statements
(4) liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees under
the New York Labor Law.
Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at
5032 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, New York 11725.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Phone: (718) 353-8588
Fax: (718)353-6288
OFFICE DEPOT: "Hecht" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HECHT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04787-RWS (N.D. Ga., December 29, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys
fees and costs of the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Office Depot, Inc. is a global supplier of office products and
services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan H. Garber, Esq.
Marc N. Garber, Esq.
THE GARBER LAW FIRM, PC
4994 Lower Roswell Rd Ste 14
Marietta, GA 30068-5648
Phone: (678) 560-6685
Fax: (678) 560-5067
E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net
mngarber@garberlaw.net
PARK CITIES: "Carmarck" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE CARMACK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARK CITIES HEALTHCARE, LLC and
SHARON D. QUICK, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03500-D (N.D.
Tex., Dec. 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, equal amount of liquidated damages, attorney fees,
and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff works for Defendants as an hourly-paid home heath
employee whose primary responsibility is to provide care and
assistance to elderly individuals with illnesses, injuries, or
infirmities. Plaintiff is not employed by the individuals
receiving care. Instead, she is and has been employed by Defendant
Park Cities Healthcare, LLC, a third-party provider of certified
nursing aides, certified medical assistants, and other home health
employees. Until recently, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week. But, when she did, Defendants did not pay her
at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a week. She only received "straight"
pay.
Park Cities provides concierge healthcare services, via
consultation, nursing case-management, and physician home visits.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
BOARD CERTIFIED IN LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW
TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
Hersh Law Firm, PC
3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75219-5133
Telephone: (214) 303 1022
Facsimile: (214) 550 8170
E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PayPal Holdings, Inc., and PayPal's former parent company,
eBay, Inc., on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired eBay securities
on the open market on or after December 19, 2013 (the "eBay Class
Period") and subsequently received PayPal securities pursuant to
eBay's spin-off of PayPal, effective as of July 17, 2015; and/or
(2) purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal securities on the open
market between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "PayPal Class Period" and, together with the eBay
Class Period, the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until February 27,
2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in PayPal and/or eBay securities during the Class
Period. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead
plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has
yet been certified in the above action.
The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that PayPal's Venmo
service was engaged in unfair trade practices, which were likely
to subject the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and/or
affect the profitability of PayPal's Venmo service.
According to the complaint, following an April 28, 2016
announcement that PayPal received a civil investigative demand on
March 28, 2016 from the Federal Trade Commission seeking documents
related to the Company's Venmo peer-to-peer payment service in
connection with potential unfair trade practices, the value of
PayPal shares declined significantly.
If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in PayPal and/or eBay securities purchased during the class period
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at -- hoffman@browerpiven.com -- or by telephone
at (410) 415-6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Faces "West" Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Ford and David West, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency doing business as FedLoan Servicing, Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00049-SL (N.D. Ohio, January 9, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency doing
business as FedLoan Servicing, is a national provider of student
financial aid services, serving millions of students and thousands
of schools through its loan guaranty, loan servicing, financial
aid processing, outreach, and other student aid programs.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy J. Doucet
DOUCET & ASSOCIATES
Ste. 2B
700 Stonehenge Parkway
Dublin, OH 43017
Tel: (614) 944-5219
Fax: (818) 638-5548
Email: troy@troydoucet.com
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: "Rembert" Suit Removed to D. Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------
Devon Rembert, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial Services LLC, Defendant,
has been removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No.
CV2016-017780, to the U.S. District Court of Arizona (Phoenix
Division) Case No. 2:17-cv-00015-ROS on January 4, 2017.
The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendant of contract violations.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Hyde & Swigart
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (602) 265-3332
Fax: (602) 230-4482
Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
Kazerouni Law Group
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (602) 900-1288
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Damian Patrick Richard, Esq.
Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLP
1545 Hotel Circle S, Ste. 150
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (619) 758-1891
Fax: (619) 296-2013
Email: drichard@sessions.legal
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plains All American
GP, LLC. The case is entitled as DAVID ONTIVEROS, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN GP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
CORPORATION; PLAINS LPG SERVICES, L.P., A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP; and PLAINS MIDSTREAM CANADA, A CANADA CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. BCV-16-103007 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28,
2016).
Plains All American GP LLC is a general partner of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. offers transportation, storage, and
marketing services of crude oil, refined products, and liquefied
petroleum gas and other natural gas-related petroleum products.
The company was founded in 2013 and is based in Houston, Texas.
Plains All American GP LLC operates as a subsidiary of Plains GP
Holdings, L.P.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Blvd Ste 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888 7771
Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
PREFERRED PEDIATRIC: "Fouche" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALINDA FOUCHE, the Plaintiff, v. PREFERRED PEDIATRIC HOME HEALTH
CARE, INC. and JANE DOSS, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01389
(S.D. Ill., Dec. 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation on behalf of all Defendants' Home Health
Workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL).
The Defendants have employed Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
workers to provide home health services to Defendants' clients.
The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of denying
overtime wages to the Home Health Workers, and refusing to allow
them to report overtime work. As such, Defendants received
substantial unpaid labor from their employees.
The Plaintiff brought the suit as a collective action under the
FLSA on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Home
Health Workers employed by Defendants at any time from the date
three years preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the date
judgment is entered in this suit.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997 9150
Facsimile: (314) 997 9170
Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com
- and -
Eli Karsh, Esq.
LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
230 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 862 3333, ext. 13
Facsimile: (314) 862 0605
E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com
PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces "Schupp" Fraud Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Schupp, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00054-RS (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2017), asserts
fraud claims.
A Case Management Conference is set for April 5, 2017, at 1:30
p.m. in courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLC
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Evidence Gathering Underway in Wipes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Johnson of 6news reports that attorneys representing
flushable wipes companies have now come out to Minnesota for their
own inspection of clogs cities claim are damaging the sewers.
Cities in Minnesota are suing six companies for advertising
certain wipes as flushable.
The cities are seeking compensation for time and money spent to
repair and unclog the sewers.
The class action lawsuit includes the cities of Wyoming, Mankato,
Holmen, Fergus Falls, Elk River and Princeton, along with the
Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Commission, Sauk Centre Public
Utilities Commission.
They are suing six companies: Procter & Gamble Company, Kimberly-
Clark Corporation, Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Professional
Disposables International, Inc., Tufco Technologies Inc. and
Rockline Industries, for advertising wipes as flushable.
Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Plant Superintendent Mark Nelson has
seen all kinds of items get flushed away but says the most
frustrating of them all remains the wipe.
"We recently had one station that plugged a pump four times in one
day," said Nelson.
As part of the class-action lawsuit, the court ordered the cities
involved to allow company lawyers to check out the sewer systems
themselves.
However, due to our Minnesota temperatures, Nelson couldn't haul
out all of the equipment requested for inspection.
"With the cold weather, it's hard to have equipment sitting
outside," he said.
Wipes are getting caught in screens, clogging pipes, building up
and costing cities both man hours and a lot of money.
The dumpster at Nelson's plant gets filled up with clogging debris
once a week.
Companies argue the wipes clogging systems are non-flushable wipes
that people flush anyway.
A Kimberly-Clark representative tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, "Our
products meet or exceed the widely accepted industry standards of
flushability," and, "In Minnesota, Kimberly-Clark is not aware of
any instance where a K-C flushable wipe has caused a clog in a
municipal sewer."
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission recently finished an
investigation into the marketing claims for Kimberly-Clark's
flushable wipes.
That investigation closed without any negative findings against
the company.
Dave Rousse, President of INDA, the Association of the Non-woven
Fabrics Industry, says people believe all wipes are flushable, but
really only 7 percent of wipes on the market will break down in
sewers.
He blames the consumer for the clogs, adding, "Too many wipes that
shouldn't get flushed are getting flushed."
The lawsuit was filed in 2015 and, right now, a 20-day jury trial
isn't scheduled to start until April of 2018.
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Wins Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-00338 (E.D. Tenn.), District Judge
Pamela L. Reeves on Dec. 12 issued a final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice. Judge Reeves granted final approval to
the settlement reached in the case.
The Company and its insurance carrier have agreed to pay the total
amount of $3.5 million.
The Court also approved the Lead Plaintiff attorneys' fees
equivalent to 33.3% of the settlement fund plus expenses in the
amount of $52,004.65. The lead plaintiff, Fawwaz Hamati, is
granted $10,000 for representing the class.
A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/shQc6n
Additional information on the case is available at:
http://www.provectussecuritieslitigation.com/
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on
May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Farrah
Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, the Former CEO,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeking monetary damages. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of
the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege
that the Defendants are liable for making false statements and
failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the Company,
in connection with the Company's application to the FDA for
Breakthrough Therapy Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma
drug, PV-10, in the Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent
denial of the Company's application for BTD.
On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.
On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.
On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the
Securities Litigation, alleging that Provectus and the other
individual defendants made knowingly false representations about
the likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for
BTD, and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff
and other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant.
On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On July 20,
2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Response"). Pursuant to order of the
Court, Provectus replied to the Response on September 18, 2015.
On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order staying a ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss pending a mediation to resolve the
Securities Litigation in its entirety. A mediation occurred on
October 28, 2015. On January 28, 2016, a settlement terms sheet
(the "Terms Sheet") was executed by counsel for the Company and
counsel for the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated Securities
Litigation.
Pursuant to the Terms Sheet, the parties agree, contingent upon
the approval of the court in the consolidated Securities
Litigation, that the cases will be settled as a class action on
the basis of a class period of December 17, 2013 through May 22,
2014. The Company and its insurance carrier agreed to pay the
total amount of $3.5 million (the "Settlement Funds") into an
interest bearing escrow account upon preliminary approval by the
court in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. The Company has
determined that it is probable that the Company will pay $1.85
million of the total, which has been accrued at December 31, 2015
and was paid in March 2016. The insurance carrier will pay $1.65
million of the total directly to the plaintiff's trust escrow
account. Notice will be provided to shareholder members of the
class. Shareholder members of the class will have both the
opportunity to file claims to the Settlement Funds and to object
to the settlement. If the court enters final approval of the
settlement, the Securities Litigation will be dismissed with full
prejudice, the Defendants will be released from any and all claims
in the Securities Litigation and the Securities Litigation will be
fully concluded. If the court does not give final approval of the
settlement, the Settlement Funds, less any claims administration
expenses, will be returned to the Company and its insurance
carrier.
A Stipulation of Settlement encompassing the details of the
settlement and procedures for preliminary and final court approval
was filed on March 8, 2016. The Stipulation of Settlement
incorporates the provisions of the Terms Sheet and includes the
procedures for providing notice to stockholders who bought or sold
stock of the Company during the class period. The Stipulation of
Settlement further provides for (1) the methodology of
administering and calculating claims, final awards to
stockholders, and supervision and distribution of the Settlement
Funds and (2) the procedure for preliminary and final approval of
the settlement of the Securities Litigation.
On April 7, 2016, the court in the Securities Litigation held a
hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement, entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement, ordered that the
class be notified of the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, and set a hearing on September 26, 2016
to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the class; whether the class should be certified
and the plan of allocation of the Settlement Funds approved;
whether to grant Lead Plaintiff's request for expenses and Lead
Plaintiff's counsel's request for fees and expenses; and whether
to enter judgment dismissing the Securities Litigation as provided
in the Stipulation of Settlement.
On September 16, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff notified the court that
approximately 6,300 stockholders did not receive notification of
the proposed settlement until late August 2016 because of the
delayed receipt of potential Settlement Class Member information
from a number of brokers. As a result, on September 22, 2016, the
parties filed a joint motion requesting that the court extend the
deadlines to file a Proof of Claim, request exclusion from the
settlement, or file an objection to the settlement, and that the
court schedule a continued settlement hearing. The court granted
the motion, cancelling the settlement hearing that had been set
for September 26 and re-setting the hearing to take place on
December 12, 2016. The court set a new deadline of November 10,
2016 for objections and requests for exclusion, and November 25,
2016 for submitting proofs of claim.
QUEBEC: Could Face Class-Action Lawsuits Over Photo Radar Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that two Montreal lawyers are pushing for class
action lawsuits against the province of Quebec in the hopes of
having hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets issued with photo
radar evidence thrown out or refunded.
"We're claiming that the system set up by the government
essentially tricked people into saying, 'We have this super solid
evidence against you,'" lawyer Joey Zukran told CTV Montreal.
Over the past eight years, Quebec has raked in more than $100
million from tickets issued through its photo radar program. But
in November, a Quebec judge threw out a woman's $1,100 ticket,
stating in their ruling that photo radar evidence amounts to
"hearsay" unless someone witnesses the infraction.
"By having this in writing, confirmed, it gives us the green light
to move forward to obtain compensation for the citizen(s)," Zukran
said.
Zukran has filed a motion for a class action lawsuit against
multiple government bodies in Quebec in the hopes of securing
compensation for roughly 400,000 drivers ticketed over the past
three years, as far back in time as he is legally able to go.
Jamie Benizri, another Montreal lawyer, has also filed a motion to
launch a similar class action suit.
"We've kind of opened the Pandora's Box," Benizri told CTV
Montreal.
Since the November ruling, hundreds of photo radar tickets have
been put on hold to be studied on a case-by-case basis.
"What I suspect will happen is that they're going to be committing
a lot more manpower and . . . . team to these operations to ensure
that they now satisfy certain criteria and that we don't have the
appearance of 'hearsay,' which has kind of plagued the whole photo
radar campaign," Benizri said.
"That's great for all future tickets," Zukran added, "however, you
have six years, and in our case, based on prescription, three
years where we can go back to make the claim for all those that
have fell victim to this system."
The lawsuits, however, won't be speeding through the courts. Both
lawyers expect that it will take a year before a judge even
decides whether or not to give the class actions the green light.
SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Deal Reached in "Alexander" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GLORIA ALEXANDER, individually and/or on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS LLC; and SAFEGUARD STORAGE PROPERTIES, LLC
d.b.a. SAFEGUARD SELF STORAGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-
06061-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order certifying a class for the purposes of settlement only.
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"all Individuals who, according to Defendants' records, worked
in the position of Store Manager or Assistant Store Manager
with Safeguard Self Storage in a location in New York during
the period October 31, 2007 through the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order (August 17, 2016)".
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to grant final approval of
the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l4WgoMFw
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
225 Broadway, Suite 1803
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 430 7932
SANOFI US: FWK Files Antitrust Action Over Insulin Glargine
-----------------------------------------------------------
FWK HOLDINGS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SANOFI, U.S. and SANOFI GmbH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12652 (D. Mass., December 30, 2016),
is a civil antitrust action challenging the defendants' alleged
unlawful impairment of competition in the market for insulin
glargine for injection.
SANOFI, U.S. -- http://www.sanofi.us/-- is a healthcare company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-482-3700
Fax: 617-482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
kristiel@hbsslaw.com
- and -
John D. Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
34 Sunset Blvd.
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Phone: (646) 386-7688
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
jbjork@vaneklaw.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
mslater@sperling-law.com
SANZ SCHOOL: "Dettling" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dettling, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated former employees of Defendants v.
Sanz School, Inc., Radians College, LLC, JTC Education, Inc., JTC
Education Holdings, Inc. and Excellere Partners, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00009-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va., January 5, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Workers
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Defendants Sanz School, Inc., Radians College, LLC, JTC Education,
Inc., JTC Education Holdings, Inc. are engaged in educational
institution.
Defendant Excellere Partners, LLC is a middle-market private
equity investment firm based in Denver, Colorado.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hann, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1701 K St NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 223-1057
Fax: (202) 223-8651
Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com
SCC TRANSPORT: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Octaviano Guerra, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCC Transport, Inc d/b/a So Cal
Carriers, SCC Investment Services Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC645449 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 3, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wage
compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Complaint stated that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and class members as independent contractors.
Defendants SCC Transport, Inc d/b/a So Cal Carriers and SCC
Investment Services Inc are engaged in trucking business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Tel: (310) 277-0614
Fax: (310) 277-0635
Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
- and -
Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Tel: 646-509-3913
Fax: 877-501-3346
Email: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Martha Stewart Merger Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al.
The Company was formed on June 5, 2015, for the purpose of
effecting the merger of Singer Merger Sub, Inc. with and into
SQBG, Inc. (formerly known as Sequential Brands Group, Inc.) ("Old
Sequential") and the merger of Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. with and
into Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. ("MSLO"), with Old
Sequential and MSLO each surviving the merger as wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company (the "Mergers"). Prior to the Mergers,
the Company did not conduct any activities other than those
incidental to its formation and the matters contemplated in the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015, as
amended, by and among the Company, MSLO, Old Sequential, Singer
Merger Sub, Inc., and Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Merger
Agreement").
On December 4, 2015, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Old
Sequential and MSLO completed the strategic combination of their
respective businesses and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company. Old Sequential was the accounting acquirer in the
Mergers; therefore, the historical consolidated financial
statements for Old Sequential for periods prior to the Mergers are
considered to be the historical financial statements of the
Company and thus, the Company's consolidated financial statements
reflect Old Sequential's consolidated financial statements for the
period from January 1, 2015 through December 4, 2015, and the
Company's consolidated financial statements thereafter.
In connection with the Mergers, the following 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit Sharing
Plan f/b/o David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et
al. filed on June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on June 26, 2015; (3) Daniel
Lisman v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on
June 29, 2015; (4) Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold Litwin v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 5, 2015;
(6) Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart filed on July 7, 2015; (7)
Cedric Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al.
filed on July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 8, 2015; (9) Paul Dranove v.
Pierre De Villemejane. et al. filed on July 8, 2015; (10) Phuc
Nguyen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on
July 10, 2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 16, 2015; (12) Karen Gordon v.
Martha Stewart et al. filed on July 27, 2015; and (13) Anne Seader
v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. et al. filed on July 28,
2015.
All of the 13 class action lawsuits name Old Sequential, MSLO, the
MSLO board of directors, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger
Sub, Inc. and the Company as defendants and allege that (a)
members of the MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties and (b) Old Sequential, MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc.,
Singer Merger Sub, Inc. and the Company aided and abetted such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the MSLO board of
directors.
On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.
On January 12, 2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the
plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, naming Ms. Martha Stewart, the Company, Old Sequential,
Madeline Merger Sub Inc. and Singer Merger Sub Inc. and alleging
that (a) Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties to MSLO's
stockholders and (b) the Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger
Sub Inc. and Singer Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted Ms.
Stewart's breach of her fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs,
restitution and disgorgement by Ms. Stewart, the recovery of
plaintiff's attorney's fees and other relief.
The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the claims made by the plaintiffs, and we are vigorously defending
such claims. Litigation costs in this matter may be significant.
We do not expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will
have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements."
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. owns a portfolio of consumer brands
in the fashion, active and home categories.
SMARTPROCURE LLC: Faces "Transene" Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit has been brought against
Smartprocure. The case is captioned, Transene Company, Inc.,
Plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated, v. Smartprocure,
LLC, Smartprocure, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-60012-BB (S.D. Fla., January 4, 2017).
Defendant SmartProcure, LLC provides an online marketplace to sell
or buy things for the government in the United States.
Defendant SmartProcure, Inc. is a company research and investing
information.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Michael Good, Esq.
Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
Anderson and Wanca
3701 Algonquin Road
Suite 500
Tel: (847) 368-1500
Fax: 847381501
Email: rgood@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
SND OPERATING: Faces "Odenbaugh" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY ODENBAUGH, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. SND OPERATING, LLC, and S N D ENERGY COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 6:16-cv-1400 (E.D. Tex., September 30, 2016), seeks
recovery of monetary damages for all overtime worked under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
SND Operating, LLC provides products and services in the oil and
gas industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SQUIP INC: Faces "Freed" Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit has been filed against Squip,
Inc. The case is captioned, William Freed d/b/a Freed
Chiropractic Center, Plaintiff, a Connecticut individual,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Squip, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00013 (D.Conn., January 4, 2017). Plaintiff
filed a motion to certify the class action together with the
complaint.
Defendant Squip, Inc. is engaged in manufacturing of medical
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
Bellin & Associates LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914) 358-5345
Fax: (212) 571-0284
Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
SUMMIT ROOFTOP: "Miller" Suit Alleges Tip Cutting Violates FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY MILLER, CALLIE SWIFT, BRITTANY BECK, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHAD BARRETT,
JONATHAN JOSEPH, DAVID STERLING FRANK DBA SUMMIT ROOFTOP LOUNGE
and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01344
(W.D. Tex., December 30, 2016), alleges that in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Defendants engaged in the
practice of taking a percentage of Plaintiffs' and the other
server's tips to pay people outside of the tip pool who were not
tipped employees.
Defendant Summit Rooftop Lounge is a bar operated in Austin,
Travis County Texas.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
906 Basse Road | Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: (210) 822-5666
Fax: (210) 822-5650
E-mail: Glenn@GlennLevyLaw.com
TRICO BANCSHARES: Settles Suits by Two Personal Bankers
-------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Bank has
agreed to settle two class action complaints by former personal
bankers.
On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by the Bank within the State of California during
the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class definition to all
current and formerly hourly-paid or non-exempt branch employees
employed by the Bank within the State of California at any time
during the period from September 15, 2010 to final judgment. The
Bank responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the
charges, and the parties engaged in written discovery. The parties
engaged in non-binding mediation of this action during the third
quarter of 2016.
On January 20, 2015, a then-current Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against
Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who
worked for t defendants during the time period beginning October
18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action. The
Company and the Bank responded to the First Amended Complaint,
denying the charges, and engaged in written discovery with
Plaintiff. The parties engaged in non-binding mediation of this
action during the third quarter of 2016.
During the third quarter of 2016, the Bank agreed to settle the
two foregoing matters. In connection with the settlement and in
consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims,
the Bank would pay up to $1.9 million. The actual cost of the
settlement will depend on the number of claims submitted by
purported class members and the Bank estimates that the actual
cost of settlement will be approximately $1,450,000. In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, hearings
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the settlement.
The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to members of the purported classes.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.
ULTA SALON: Court Preliminary Approves Moore Class Action Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SARAH MOORE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS
& FRAGRANCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-03224-FMO-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:
1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement;
2. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the
Notice, Opt-Out Form, and Claim Form
3. directing the parties to carry out the settlement and
claims process according to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
4. appointing CPT Group (CPT) as Settlement Administrator.
The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement
Agreement are fair, reasonable, adequate, and comply with Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed manner
of the notice of settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement
constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances
and complies with the requirements of due process.
Any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement,
including the requested attorney's fees, costs, and incentive
payment; and/or (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement
must file his or her objection to the settlement or request for
exclusion (i.e., the Opt-Out Form) no later than March 29, 2017,
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, Notice and/or
Opt-Out Form. Any class member who wishes to appear at the final
approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or
through an attorney, to object to the settlement, including the
requested attorney's fees, costs, and incentive payment, shall, no
later than March 29, 2017, file with the court and serve on class
counsel and defendants a Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness
Hearing (Notice). The Notice shall indicate whether the class
member will appear on his or her own behalf or through an
attorney.
A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for May 18, 2017, at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse, to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to
class counsel, and an incentive payment to the class
representative. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for the award of
a class representative incentive payment and attorney's fees and
costs no later than March 20, 2017. In the event any objections to
the motion are filed, class counsel shall, no later than May 1,
2017, file a reply addressing the objections.
The Plaintiff shall, no later than May 1, 2017, file and serve a
motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any
objections to the settlement. The motion shall be noticed for
hearing on the date set forth in paragraph 9 above. Defendant may
file and serve a memorandum in support of final approval of the
settlement or in response to objections no later than May 1, 2017.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H361k147
UNITED CEREBRAL: Overtime Pay Sought in "Adams" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Adams, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. United Cerebral Palsy of Central
Arkansas, Inc., d/b/a United Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas, and Paula
Rader and Larry Stang, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00930 (E.D.
Ark., December 28, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and equitable relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas, Inc., d/b/a United
Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas, is an Arkansas corporation with its
principal place of business located in Little Rock, Arkansas. It
is a health care service for people suffering from cerebral palsy
where Adams worked as a home healthcare worker who provided
companionship services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve Rauls, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Risk Corridor Case Certified as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Gale at Healthcare Dive reports that the lawsuit brought
against the government by the Health Republic Insurance Company is
one of more than a dozen filed by payers over money owed through
the risk corridor program. In November, CMS quietly revealed that
the government would only pay 2% of the $5.9 billion it owed
through the program for 2016.
With the Obama administration on its way out and the Trump
administration taking over with plans for repealing the ACA on the
table, it is unclear how the government will proceed in legal
proceedings over the risk corridor program. The government had
indicated a willingness to settle these suits, but has been
defending them in court, as Timothy Jost reported in Health
Affairs.
The legislation puts the Trump administration in an awkward
position. Settling with payers over risk corridor payments could
be seen as a bailout. However, fighting the lawsuits in court
would mean defending a law that President-elect Trump has harshly
criticized.
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: "Heistand" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
April Heistand and John Heistand, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a class similarly situated persons v. United
Tranzactions, LLC and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60030-BB (S.D. Fla., January 6,
2017), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Defendant United TranzActions, LLC provides payment solutions for
automotive, furniture, building materials and supplies, equipment
sales and rentals, trucking, retail, manufacturing, healthcare and
hospitality, and distribution industries.
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information
services company, provides information, analytical, and marketing
services to organizations and consumers to help manage the risk
and reward of commercial and financial decisions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Ross Goldberg, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
2002 E 5th Avenue, Suite 104
Tampa, FL 33605
Tel: (813) 567-1230
Email: pgoldberg@seraphlegal.com
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Faces 3 Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, three actions were pending for which either a class had
been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification
where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers
are also named in these actions.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.
In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. The case has been stayed for
a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years. The
last stay was entered on March 16, 2016 and stays the case,
including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co.
In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually
and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class.
The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of
the defendants.
Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April
2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined
review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the
ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs
have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants,
which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court
intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated
trials, each with five plaintiffs. The trial court set the first
date for the consolidated trials for January 9, 2017. With respect
to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs
brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome
of the first phase of the trial. On May 23, 2016, the trial court
ruled that the case may proceed against Liggett. Liggett requested
that the trial court certify the matter to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals for review, but the trial court refused.
It is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately
75 individual cases.
In addition to the cases described, numerous class actions remain
certified against other cigarette manufacturers including cases
alleging, among other things, that use of the terms "lights" and
"ultra lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Adverse decisions in these cases could have a material adverse
affect on Liggett's sales volume, operating income and cash flows.
VESDEL FOOD'S: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vesdel Food's Inc.
The case is titled as Edwin Zayas, EDWIN ZAYAS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Vesdel Food's Inc. and 30th Street & 9th Avenue Enterprise, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09939 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2016).
30Th Street & 9Th Avenue Enterprises, LLC is a corporation based
in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
2501 Jody Court
North Bellmore, NY 11710
Telephone: (516) 783 9662
Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com
VIKING CLIENT: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Margaret McKenna, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Viking Client Services, LLC, also
known as Viking Client Services, Inc., also known as Viking
Collection Service, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00012-BEN-
JMA (S.D. Cal., January 4, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited telephone sales in violation of
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Viking Client Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency that
offers a full range of recovery solutions for large, regional and
community banks, insurance companies, debt buyers and other
financial establishments across the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Kazerounian Law Group, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
VIRDIG ENTERPRISES: "Rubi" Suit Seeks Wage and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liliana Rubi, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Virdig Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Alba's
Pizzeria & Restaurant), Giacomo Virdone, Paul Digregorio and Zina
Virdone, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00007 (E.D.N.Y., January 3,
2017), seeks wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standard Act and
New York Labor Law.
Defendant Virdig Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Alba's Pizzeria and
Restaurant is engaged in the restaurant industry and located at
13765 Queens Boulevard, in Queen County, NY.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina M. Franco, Esq.
LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (800) 933-5620
VORTENS INC: Faces "Cone" Suit Over Defective Toilet Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN AND JOANNA CONE on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly
Situated v. VORTENS, INC., and SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00001 (E.D. Tex., January 1, 2017),
seeks the removal, repair or replacement of allegedly defective
toilet tanks.
Defendant Vortens, Inc. is and was engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling, among other
things, "ceramic" toilet tanks for consumer use in residential
homes.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton, Esq.
CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
2701 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
Plano, TX 75093
Phone: (972) 403-1133
Fax: (972) 403-0311
E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
rstanton@cstriallaw.com
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Magadia" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Magadia, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Defendants, has been removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 16CV303387, to the
U.S. District Court of Northern District of California (San Jose)
Case No. 5:17-cv-00062 on January 5, 2017.
The case arises from labor-related disputes.
The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Certify 3 Classes in Nikmanesh Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AFROUZ NIKMANESH, the Plaintiff v. WAL-
MART STORES, INC. ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-00202-
AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford entered an order
denying these classes:
Rest Break Class:
"all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
Defendants as Pharmacists in the State of California, who did
not take a 10-minute rest break during the first 4 hours of
their shift, or a second 10-minute rest break for all shifts
of 6-10 hours, when they were scheduled to be the only
Pharmacist on duty at any time during their shift, within four
years before the filing of the original complaint until the
date of judgment;
Wage Statement Class:
"all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
Defendants as Pharmacists within the State of California, who
are members of the Rest Break Class, and as a result of the
rest break claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint,
were not provided with accurate, itemized wage statements as
required by California Labor Code section 226, within one year
before the filing of the original Complaint until the date of
judgment; and
Waiting Time Class:
"all former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as
Pharmacists in the State of California, who are not members of
the Training Course Class, but are members of the Rest Break
Class, and as a result of the rest break claims alleged in the
Second Amended Complaint, were not paid all wages due and
owing at the time of their separation as required by
California Labor Code sections 201-203, within three years
from the filing of the original Complaint until the date of
judgment.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QmCfhxK9
The Court said, "There are too many variables at play here that
affected class members individually and differently for "questions
of law or fact common to class members" to "predominate" over
questions affecting only individual members. The following are
just a few examples of these variables. First, Defendants point
out that Walmart does not have a requirement that in-store
prescriptions be filled within 20 minutes, although "some Market
Directors and Regional Directors have identified that timing as a
goal." Second, while a class member stated that it did not "make
sense" to go through the security measures "for almost 35 minutes"
to close down the pharmacy for a 10 minute break, there is
evidence that it took other pharmacists as little as 30 seconds to
close a pharmacy. One of Plaintiffs' own exhibits shows that the
process for closing down a pharmacy varies depending on the
store's layout and number of doors or gates. This pharmacist also
testified that it takes him "no more than one minute" to close
down the pharmacy and take a break. Third, while filling in-store
prescriptions within 20 minutes was Walmart's goal, failing to do
so did not automatically have negative consequences for each class
member. The consequences instead depended on the pharmacist's
individual situation. Different class members experienced
different situations and "policies" that allegedly prevented them
from taking mandated rest breaks. A company goal or policy that
encourages one employee to work harder and prevents his or her
from taking breaks does not necessarily have the same effect on
all other employees. The common questions do not predominate over
questions affecting only individual class members in this case.
Shortly before oral argument, plaintiffs cited a very recent case,
decided on November 21, 2016. See Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., 210
Cal. Rptr. 3d 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). This state appellate
decision reversed the state trial court after the trial court
reversed itself on a class certification motion following the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Dukes. Just before
reversing itself, the Lubin trial court received further briefing
on a new case from the California Supreme Court. See Brinker Rest.
Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012). So, to review,
plaintiffs call upon the Court to discern the law applicable in
this federal case by reviewing a very recent state court of appeal
decision reversing a state trial judge who, with guidance from the
California Supreme Court in Brinker, reversed himself under Dukes.
As this Court noted at the hearing on this matter, there is
uncertainty about the interplay of state and federal law here,
both concerning class certification requirements, and developing
substantive wage and hour law. And its worthy of note that Dukes
involved sex discrimination and its unique body of substantive
federal law. In all events, Lubin does not convince this Court
that plaintiffs have affirmatively established the requirements
for class certification under Rule 23. See Dukes, 564 U.S. at
350-51".
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Granted Class Certification in "Bitner"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS BITNER and TOSHIA PARKER,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:13-cv-00451-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. William M. Conley
entered an order:
1. denying Defendant's motion for decertification;
2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:
all persons who were employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts,
Inc. in the State of Wisconsin as In-House Sales
Representatives at any time from June 25, 2011, to [a date
in fall of 2014 to be determined by the parties];
3. appointing Thomas Bitner as class representative;
4. appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C., and Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
as class counsel;
5. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment;
6. denying Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment;
and
7. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss four opt-in
plaintiffs who have failed to respond to discovery requests
and noticed depositions.
The claims by opt-in plaintiffs John Montzingo, D'Andrye Arthur,
Jason Klidies and John Wicklander are dismissed without prejudice.
On or before two weeks, the parties should submit a joint proposed
form and method of notice, or if unable to agree, plaintiffs
should submit their own proposed notice, with defendant to respond
by January 18, 2017. If necessary, the court will hold a brief
hearing on January 25, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. to finalize both.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PfUTLFyJ
ZETA INTERACTIVE: "Earley" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph M. Earley, Plaintiff, v. Zeta Interactive Corp. d/b/a Zeta
Global, Defendants, Case No. 17-23 (Mass. Super. Ct., January 3,
2017), alleges violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. The
Complaint says Zeta failed to pay the assured non-discretionary
compensation.
Defendant Zeta Interactive Corporation provides marketing
solutions for helping brands to acquire, grow, and retain
customers and located in Burlington, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK
100 TradeCenter, Suite G-700
Woburn, MA 01801
Tel: (617) 600-7520
Email: Joshua@Garicklaw.com
ZIMMER BIOMET: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between September 7, 2016
and October 31, 2016 inclusive. Investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tenet shares during the Class Period, are
encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the January 31, 2016
lead plaintiff motion deadline.
To participate in this class action lawsuit, click here. You can
also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-
1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.
Per the complaint, during the Class Period, Zimmer made materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects. The complaint is as follows: that issues within the
supply chain caused a decline in order fulfillment, particularly
within the knee and hip portfolios; that, because of this, Zimmer
would not achieve its revenues and profit as anticipated and; that
as a result of the above, the Company's statements regarding its
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 31, 2016, the Company issued a press release reporting
third quarter 2016 financial results. Zimmer reported net sales of
$1.83 billion, and lowered guidance for the full year 2016 at
$7.630 billion to $7.650 billion, a decline from the $7.68 billion
to $7.715 billion estimated in July. Zimmer maintains that weak
sales are due to a change in the supply chain, leading to a lack
of available implants and instrument sets during the quarter.
In a conference with investors following the above release, the
Company stated: "Third quarter revenue was below our expectations,
primarily due to execution issues within our large joint supply
chain, which led to a degradation in order fulfillment rates late
in the quarter, as well as our performance in dental . . . As a
consequence, we underestimated demand for certain key cross-sell
brands within our existing customer base, leading to a depletion
of our safety stocks and also affecting our ability to capitalize
on new customer opportunities."
Following this, shares of Zimmer fell $17.15 per share, or nearly
14%, to close on October 31, 2016 at $105.40 per share, causing
investors harm.
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.
Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding the rights
of shareholders.
* Supreme Court to Consider Taking up Validity of Suit Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lafolla at Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will
consider on January 6 several cases asking it to decide whether
companies can force employees to sign away their right to bring
class actions as part of their arbitration agreements.
The justices are slated at their conference to discuss four
separate petitions for certiorari asking for review of appeals
court rulings, with decisions from the 2nd and 5th U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeals finding that class-action waivers were
enforceable and judgments from the 7th and 9th Circuits holding
that they violated workers' rights.
*********
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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2017. 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 * * *